Was Mary Really a Virgin? (Mary was a Virgin and Jesus had no Brothers and Sisters!)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2021
- Was Mary Really a Virgin? Yes, Mary was a Virgin for her whole life and Jesus had no brothers and sisters or siblings. Mary was an ever virgin and this video discusses the so called brothers and sisters of Jesus and myths and misconceptions that people have to this Catholic teaching.
QUESTIONS? Ask us here: www.subscribepage.com/e3e8c7
SUPPORT: Please help us to keep growing and saving souls!
Monthly: / catholictruth
Monthly, periodically, or one time: catholictruth.org/donate/
FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRUTH:
Catholic Truth FAMILY channel (Advice on Love, Dating, Engagement, Marriage and Kids) / @catholictruthfamily
Podcast: www.buzzsprout.com/1157177
Twitter: / catholictruth7
TikTok: / catholictruthofficial
Instagram: Catholic_Truth_Official
Facebook Page: bit.ly/3eDvMO8
Facebook Group Page: / catholictruthct
Blog: thecatholictruth.org/category...
Rumble: rumble.com/user/CatholicTruth
APOLOGETICS TRAININGS:
Would you like 1-on-1 Apologetics training with Bryan? Or a chance to ask questions or get advice? Contact Catholic Truth: info@CatholicTruth.org
BOOK: "WHY Do You Believe In GOD?" amzn.to/33iZSk3
Need a Speaker or Retreat? CatholicTruth.org
Online Confirmation Retreat: catholictruth.org/online-conf...
MERCH: thecatholictruth.org/shop/
Like our shirts? Designed by Glorybound Apparel: gloryboundco.com/
BOOK: Counterfeit Spirituality: Exposing the False Gods (All about New Age practices, Yoga, Reiki, Astrology, Law of Attraction, etc.)
Our Sunday Visitor: bit.ly/3vtK63Z
Amazon: amzn.to/3e1BqMk
Also see Barnes & Nobles, etc.
Related Searches: mary was virgin, mary ever virgin catholic, did jesus Christ have other brothers and sisters, catholic
Music Credit: http//www.bensound.comroyalty-free-music
I finally got my rosary the other day. I was having bad dreams for a month straight and since I have been praying the rosary every morning and night before bed I have not been having bad dreams. God bless. Let’s pray for all of the Protestants out there seeking truth
Amen!
@@CatholicTruthOfficial so many Protestants coming at me now and taking the Bible out of context. It’s so wild to me that they know nothing about church history and the way they twist the scriptures is crazy. Somebody was literally defending Martin Luther’s hatred towards the Jews. Apparently hatred is a fruit of the spirit lol.
Thank you so much for this post. I just discovered your channel (thanks be to God)and I can't wait to review all your material. God bless you and keep up the great work of defending our Church
Thank you! And Welcome to our Channel. We hope that our videos continue to teach and inspire you in the faith. God bless you.
Awesome talk as usual. God Bless.
Only God could make His Own perfect Immaculate Mother.
@Tricia Perry is Jesus God??? YES
Was Jesus the son of Mary??? YES
Did Jesus DIED??? YES
Did Jesus RESURRECT??? YES
Did Jesus ASCENDED to Heaven??? YES
@Tricia Perry man. I could barely follow your posts. Why do you post like that? And yes, you are mocking .
@Tricia Perry GOD=Holy Trinity (Father ,Son, Holy Spirit)
@Tricia Perry I saw the wealth and health false preacher you follow. No wonder you are so confused in your theology and thinking. You need to leave that cult before you are lost for eternity. It is clear you are merely trying to parrot the teachings of your false leader and do not read the bible for yourself. If you did read the bible and think for yourself you would leave that cult and come to the true Faith in the Catholic Faith.
God so loved the world he gave us his only begotten son Jesus and Jesus so loved all God’s children he gave us his only mother Mary
Interesting video series, thank you for that.
Thanks Brian, this was a very timely video for me. I appreciate your videos very much. God bless from Malta
I really love your work and I’m so inspired by your wisdoms. I was a weak catholic ones I was being brain washed by protestants and almost changed religion. I just didn’t have answers but hard work of research and reading the catechism and people like you helped me but I also believe the holy spirt guided me. Thank you so much for your hard work of all the research you’ve done and having courage to have a UA-cam channel my god bless you and our holy mother take care of you.
Glad to hear it Victor. Thank you for your comment! Good for you for growing closer to Christ and in your faith.
The Obelisk is a sign of victory over paganism. It has nothing to do with worshipping other gods. That's where the Roman emperors used to kill Christians, and yet the only memory of that is the Obelisk where true Christianity now sits and lives on while that Pagan myth has faded away. So it's a symbol of Christ's Triumph / paganism. Nothing to do with worship. Are conspiracy theories don't hold up, and you need some better arguments if you're going to convince us.
Also, you've posted this post before, and we don't allow pre-written spam posts. So if you post it again we will just delete it. Engage in the conversation and what the video is about, not pre-written lectures.
No completely false. And sorry again, but Christmas and Easter have everything to do with Christianity. They celebrate our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
@@astutik8909 you have no idea what you are talking about because you know nothing of Church history. Christmas trees and Easter are all of Christian origin. The origin of the English word "Easter" is lost in history and is presumed to come from pre-English old German referring to the sun rising in the east, just as the sun rose Jesus's resurrection day. The Catholic Church is the one and only true Church, established by Our Lord and God Jesus Christ on St Peter and the Apostles. ALL other sects are schisms and breakaways from the Catholic Church of Christ. You may belong to a man-made Christian "denomination", but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the only true Church and not a "denomination".
Thank you for defending the Church and our Blessed Mother.
Catholic church is wrong, the Bible is right. Jesus had brothers and sisters
@@vanderHoffTeachings No you are wrong. Jesus did not have blood brothers and sisters. You are believing lies. You need to dive deep into Scripture.
@@marcihf217 Please read Mark 3:31 and 32
Armand, we answered that in the video. They are not blood brothers and sisters unless you don't understand Scripture and only read the Bible in English and ignore all Christians for over 1500 years.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I don’t think that is true. Sorry
Keep speaking the truth
I know you hate it in your heart when you think people is not preaching right according to you or people you know, Jesus loves you let’s love each other not hating
Street Tuner, the devil hates the truth and blocks his ears as well.
Thank you so much for your angry comment to Tricia. We keep praying for you and for your heart. Jesus was God. That is the heart of Christian belief. If you don't accept that Jesus is God then you are not a Christian. It puts you in the category of the Church of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Muslims.
If you had taken any time to understand Christian teaching, you would know that God never died. Jesus Took on human flesh. So he had a fully divine nature and a human nature. It was his human body and his human nature that died. Not his divine nature. Jesus is the Eternal Word of God and to the power of God and to the wisdom of God, as the Bible says, and so he cannot die. But the flesh that he took on died.
Lastly Tricia, you show that you are not of the holy spirit because of your anger which the Bible condemns, you're yelling, screaming, calling names, condemnation, all things that the Bible condemns. You can tell a person by their fruits. We will keep praying for you.
@Tricia Perry you are a troll of the devil
God bless you Brian, for preserving and explaining our Holy faith, which is always under attack.
They are trying, and they are failing. And they are in error.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Hi Bryan, there is another Bible verse at LUKE 2:40-45 when the Boy Jesus was 12 years old and together with his parents, Mary & Joseph, they went to the temple to attend Passover Feast, and there was/were NO mention of any other younger child or children who went with them. For 12 years, if the boy Jesus had younger siblings, his parents should have brought them (supposedly siblings) also together with them to the temple. But it's clear enough that they were only three, Jesus and his parents who were looking for him among relatives when he was missing & was left behind at the temple. For your additional proof. This is used by Catholic Faith Defenders (CFD) in PH. Watch also "Punto Por Punto" CFD UA-cam channel at ua-cam.com/channels/JLj8-rMpGgTj-hwkS4ni9w.html Thanks & God bless.
Thank you for your videos! They are very helpful :)
this is true i went school with someone i call him brother today we are not blood family many people need to realise this walking with jesus we call others brothers and sisters
Thank you for shedding this to the light. God bless you
The catholic church is in darkness, they don’t shine light. Repent of this idolatry. Read Deuteronomy 18:10-12 and Isaiah 8:19
Congratulations on 30,000 subscribers! Keep up the great work!
Thank you very much!
It helps a lot Bryan, thank you 😀 It's my new favourite channel! 😀
Wow, clear as clear can be. Thank you for your wisdom.
You are very welcome! Praise God!
I’ve known and believed this fact for over 75 years. God said it, I believe it. Enough said.
@@milomask8456 the issue is simple. The belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary in the Catholic Church goes way back many centuries ago, as far back as the second century of Christianity (this was before the decision was made by the church as to what books should make up the Bible ). And so the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity actually predates the compilation of the books of the Bible. But that belief in no way contradicts what the Bible says. The Bible contains no irrefutable proof that Mary was not a perpetual virgin before and after the birth of Christ. People have tried to use the references in the Bible of the "brothers" of Jesus (Matt 13:55) or the fact that Jesus was called "the first born son" (Luke 2:7) or the fact that the Bible said that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she bore her Son Jesus (Matt 1:25) -- all in an attempt to challenge the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. But the fact is that all these scripture references DO NOT conclusively prove that Mary had other biological children after Jesus
@@milomask8456 Diana, the virgin queen of heaven , got a name change to Mary to bring in the Diana worshipers who were not about to abandon their beloved goddess. Thats why til this day Mary is the great and powerful queen of heaven, and they are forced to protect her virginity seeing as how Diana was a virgin. She was a virgin cause she was also a lesbian.
@@milomask8456 So you think that the title "first born son" always means that there is a second son, a third son, etc ? You are mistaken. The Bible makes it clear that the word "first" in the phrase "first born son" doesn't mean that the person MUST be the first son among MANY sons. Rather it means that the person is the first male to "open the womb" of his mother i.e the first male child to be born (Luke 2:23). And so if a woman who previously had no children gives birth to a son and doesn't go on to give birth to any other child, that son is still rightly called her "first born son" even though he is an ONLY son, because the fact remains that he "opened her womb" (this fact is NOT changed by the fact that no other children were born after him).
The use of the word "first" doesn't always mean that there must be a second, a third, a fourth, and so on. A person can be FIRST and at the same time be the LAST (Revelation 22:13). Jesus was Mary's FIRST born son quite alright. But He was also her LAST son. In other words, her ONLY biological Son. Jesus was both a first born son and an only son. A passage in the old testament prophesied about the sufferings and death of Jesus with these words: "they will look upon me whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an ONLY SON, and they will keep bitterly over him like that bitter weeping over a FIRST BORN SON " (Zechariah 12:10). It is interesting how the titles "first born son" and "Only Son" are both used here in reference to Jesus.
@@milomask8456 Oh Milo, there you go again! Luke 2:23 began by saying: "As it is written in the Law.." In other words, Luke is making reference to the law given to the Israelites in the old testament in Exodus 13:2 which says: " Consecrate to me every FIRST born son ...." I am aware the some translations like the King James Version and the New King James Version use " every male who opens the womb" instead of "first born son" but there is no difference between the two phrases. That is why majority of Bible translations still use "first born son"
You are the one guilty of using your OWN personal interpretation (or opinion) to insist that a "first" MUST always be followed by "a second" and "a third" and so on whereas the Bible has clearly showed that a "first born son" can very well be an ONLY Son.
In the old testament, out of all the nations on earth, God chose the nation of Israel to be His "first born son" ( Exodus 4:22). Can you tell me exactly which nation went on to become "the second son" and which one became the "third son" and can you tell me how many "sons" in total God eventually chose out of all the nations on the earth ?
@@milomask8456 you didn't answer my question. In the old testament, When God chose Israel out of all the nations on earth to be His "first born son" (Exodus 4:22), can you tell me which nation He subsequently chose to be His "Second son" and which one He chose as "third son", etc ? After all, it was you who said that where there is a "first", there MUST always be a "Second" and a "third" and so on
God help me a sinner, help me to understand who's right and who's wrong, for now a days there are so many false teachers. I put my trust in you God. Amen.
@@Wgaither1 you cannot see the forest for the trees. The Catholic Church has done all the hard work for you over the last 2000 years. Learn from her wisdom!
Exactly. Some people are sadly so blind and so closed off.
@@OzCrusader Opinions are like a curse, everyone's afflicted with it
Thank you for enlightened me.
King James Bible
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Mary had other children
Thank u Sir Br
Before I found the one true church, I believed Jesus had half brothers and sisters. This false teaching is excepted and defended adamantly by Southern Baptists Churches. I have tried to confront my Baptist brothers and sisters about this and I use the Bible and the church fathers and they still say that brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the gospels are from Mary. So many lies that prostantans are being taught and believe in. Thanks be to God that I have found the one true church, the Catholic Church.
Well said. The Church is Catholic from the beginning.
@Tricia Perry then for who?
@Tricia Perry who is the REAL Church??? According to you. By the yes, i am obviously Hispanic. And you can represent Jesus however is the artist. It is common sense Jesus was of Middle Eastern decent, not white.
@Tricia Perry not really , because in Asia Lord Christ wasn't portrayed as white but as Asian. Not all statues are of white people for example Saint Andrew Kim Taegon have his own statue and he is korean. We images of Saint from different backgrounds and skin colors.
Welcome Home!
God bless thee all .. my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Thank you ❤❤❤🙏🙏🙏
13:25 As a Biblical scholar and linguist I can confirm this. It only is relating what happened or didn't happen up to that event. It says nothing, even by implication, about anything after that event. "Until" is not a good translation of it. "Even unto" is better.
@@justinbest1348 Actually, we cannot declare that. Doctrine is not made only on written Scripture. The Orthodox Church has nailed it correctly in this matter. They remind us it was the Church who wrote Scripture by the Holy Spirit. It was Church who declares what is and is not in the Canon, based on guidance of the leaders of the Church by the Holy Spirit. And it is leaders of the Church who determine what is and isn't doctrine, by that same guidance of that same Holy Spirit who inspired Holy Scripture. And consider that the Canon was not decided for the first couple of hundred years. So for at least 200 years the Church had Bibles with different books in the New Testament from church to church. This is why the Protestants are wrong about Sola Scriptura. #1 It does not reflect the real situation in the Church when considering the early history of the Church #2 it deprives God of his real time authority over the Church #3 it encourages deism, where God makes the Bible and steps back and is not involved, which is right in line with the Humanism of all the Reformers. Humanism believed at that time that the power of the human mind was capable of observing, discriminating, and deciding everything by its own power apart from God. And to tack on God's name was simple appropriate and a good luck charm.
@@justinbest1348 You are an idolater. The Scriptures is not the Word of God. They themselves rebuke you as an idolater. Try reading them for a change instead of St Irenaeus and St Augustine. Jimmy Akin is also an idolater. Hint: John 1.1-14 The Bible is not the second member of the Trinity, the Word of God, who was God Himself. For if the Bible were the Word of God it would also be God according to its own Testimony about the Word of God BEING God. Quit your idolatry.
As for interpreting the Scriptures, no. Not everyone can properly interpret the Scriptures by means of their reason. They were not written for the purpose of "every man" being able to clearly and easily understand them. And not everyone has the same quality or level of reason. I am sure you've met some pretty stupid people in your life. What is worse than a false teacher rebelling against his own voluntary vows to God? A true teacher imitating him. Stop imitating the Protestants. They are rotten to the core! Jude calls Luther a false teacher and by definition found in the Scriptures Luther was also exactly a false prophet. We are not to harken unto him at all! He is to be treated as if he were dead. But instead Catholics for 500 years have been trying to placate, imitate, and make peace with those heretics.
And you don't need to lecture me on Church history or historical documents. I already am well versed in these matters. The matter of ministry to individuals though is not to puff up their heads with knowledge, but to turn their hearts back to the Living God. Quit interfering with ministry and DO ministry instead.
@@justinbest1348 "This relates only to the Christian scriptures, the Hebrews scriptures were already decided by the time of Jesus and his Apostles."
@@justinbest1348 "Jesus = the Word of God, the Divine Scriptures = the word of God"
@@justinbest1348 Jesus and the Apostles did not pass down to us a Canon of the Old Testament. They quoted most often from the Septuagint, but our copies of that hold different books, some of which have never been included in any official Canon. Stop reducing everything down to say what you want it to say. You are ignorant and seeking strife. That alone means you have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God (see Gal. 5 for a list). In addition your refusal to repent of your idolatry tells that you do not walk by the Spirit. And finally, it is futile to speak to you about understanding since you are clearly in sin. Job 28:28 makes it clear that if you are not shunning sin you do not have understanding. You do not have understanding, since you embrace idolatry and do not shun it when it laid plain in your face. Notifications are turned off from your comments.
Bryan, I'm a convert to Catholicism and I 100% believe in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. One thing I have a problem wrapping my head around is why was Mary betrothed to Joseph if she had taken a vow of virginity? They were betrothed even before the Angel Gabriel's annunciation to Mary, so what was Mary and Joseph's plan? Were they going to start a family or was this always intended to be a platonic relationship? If Mary had decided to break her vow of lifelong chastity to start a family with Joseph, would this not go against her sinless nature? Please help me understand this!
It would have been a platonic relationship. Many Jewish couples in the Essene community made vows of virginity even as married couples.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial - Thank you so much! This helps with my understanding. I knew there must be something from Jewish tradition I was missing.
Amen thank you so much for this great video, I am a practicing Catholics and never understood why Protestants are so wrong on this topic
Our pleasure!
Thank you for your wisdom 🙏🏻 and thank you for being a Sovereign Soul of God 🕊
IN JESUS NAME!!!
8:00 I commend you for this astute insight. It is true. Even today in Slavic culture they call a male cousin their brother, not meaning literal brother, but family relation.
@@Justas399 Dont be stupid. Read and listen again, because you are being stupid.
@@TheRootedWord He is stupid because he doesnt believe every word of catholic theology?
@@Justas399 it seems to me that you believe that "cousin" and "brother" are the ONLY ways by which two members of the same extended family can be related. If I point to a man and say: "this man is a member of my extended family, but he is NOT my cousin", does that automatically mean that he MUST be my biological brother (i.e having the same mother with me) ? There are other ways two men can be related other than just being "brothers" and "cousins" eg nephew, step brother, etc.
I notice that you keep pointing out that the Bible DID NOT use the SPECIFIC Greek word for "cousin" in Matt 13:55. But that doesn't automatically mean that those men are biological brothers of Jesus, because the Greek word that the Bible DID use ("Adelphoi") is also not SPECIFIC for brothers who have the same biological mother. There are many instances where the Bible used "Adelphoi" to describe a group of men as "brothers" even though they didn't have the same biological mother (Matt 23:8-9, Acts 2:27). There are at least two reasons why there should be NO doubt that Jesus is the biological child of Mary (1) the Bible actually describes the birth of Jesus by Mary on that cold night in the Bethlehem (2) the Bible repeatedly refers to Mary as the "Mother of Jesus" (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). As it turns out, the Bible DOESN'T provide these two evidences for "Joseph, James, Simon and Judas" (Matt 13:55) as evidence that they are biological children of Mary.
@@Justas399 you said "when brother and sister are used in CONNECTION with father or mother..." But the Bible DOESN'T connect Mary with "Joseph, James, Simon and Judas". The Bible never said that she was THEIR mother nor did it ever say that they are HER CHILDREN. People are only trying to connect them by using the fact that the Bible refers to them as "brothers" of Jesus to IMPLY that they must have been biological children of Mary.
@@Justas399 Hmmmm. Are you saying that there exists a "Mother to son" connection between "Mary" and '' Joseph, James, Simon and Judas" simply because these two parties are mentioned in the SAME Bible verse alongside Jesus ? First of all, let us not give too much significance to the fact that all three parties ( "Mary", "Jesus" and "Joseph, James, Simon and Judas" ) appear in the same Bible verse because the original authours of the Gospels didn't divide their writings into chapters and verses as we have it today (this was done many centuries later) so you cannot say that the gospel writers were trying to show us a "connection" by mentioning all three parties in the same Bible verse. Besides, any perceived "connection" appears to be a INDIRECT one based on the following logic: if "X" is the "brother" of "Y" and "Y" is the biological "son" of "Z" then "X" MUST also be a biological son of "Z". (An indirect connection is weaker evidence compared to direct connection ) You are simply inferring that "Joseph, James, Simon and Judas" MUST have been biological children of Mary simply because they were called "brothers" of Jesus and that Jesus is the biological son of Mary. No DIRECT connection is made between Mary and those four individuals. And the question I keep asking is WHY do ALL the gospel writers refrain from making any DIRECT family connection between Mary and the "brothers" of Jesus i.e either directly calling them CHILDREN of Mary or referring to Mary as THEIR MOTHER ? It is simply because no direct biological connection exists. Someone once told me that the Bible didn't bother telling us directly that Mary is THEIR Mother because such information was UNNECESSARY since we have already been told that they are "brothers" of Jesus who is the Son of Mary (and so the Bible was expecting us to use "logic" or "common sense" to make the deduction that these men must have also been children of Mary). Well, I told him that whenever the Bible fails to provide an information, it is not always proof that such information is UNNECESSARY, and that when the Bible does provide an information, it is also not always proof that such information is NECESSARY. After all, the Bible had repeatedly said that Mary is the "Mother" of Jesus (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). Why does the Bible go on to also tell us that Jesus is the "son of Mary" (Mark 6:3) ? Was that additional information really necessary? Shouldn't it be obvious from logic or common sense that if "X" is the Mother of "Y" then "Y" must be the son of "X" ?
One more thing. We are making the mistake of viewing passages like Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 as passages that were meant to discuss the GENEAOLOGY of Jesus. In discussing the genealogy of a person, the INTENTION is to give details about the person's family connections eg who is his father, who is his mother, who are his brothers and sisters, etc (eg Matthew 1:1-17). Remember that the PURPOSE of passages like Matt 13:53-58 and Mark 6:1-6 was to show us how Jesus was rejected and disrespected by people of own home town, and NOT to give us details of the family tree or family connections of Jesus. So we should stop trying to use them to "prove" the true size of the immediate family of Jesus and whether or not His Mother had other "children"
Concerning the issue of whether the Lord had any blood brothers, I understand how this is a problem for people in the West, where "brother" or "sister" strictly means exactly that. For us in Africa, or people in the Middle East, brothers and sisters extend all the way from the nuclear family to seventh degree cousins, and, in fact, to the entire community. Likewise, every older man and woman in the community is uncle or aunt. So, this issue does not arise as a problem at all for us. It makes perfect sense that the Bible could refer to Jesus' cousins as his brothers even when it's very clear from other parts of scripture that the Blessed Virgin Mother never had any other blood children in the nuclear sense. Keep up the good work, Brian.
@Tricia Perry Please, don't be in a hurry. Don't run away. What's on your mind? I'm available for further discussions. There's nothing to be angry about. Let's put aside the hate and acrimony and reason together. Our God is a dialoguing God that enjoys reasoning along with us, because he's the one who gave us both the brain and the faculty of reason.
Thank you for the comment! Great confirmation. God bless you. Thank you for watching.
But what would qualify someone as your "Legal" brother? (DNA, etc.)
@@worldview730 marriage, or just calling someone a brother, because you’re more than just friends, they’re like a brother from another mother kind of stuff.
@@noahgaming8833 Ok, good, thanks
Translations sometimes cause misconceptions. Saint Paul said it's preferred that all men be celibate as Paul was but if a man burns with desire then he should be given unto his own wife and to be devoted.
This video is SO NEEDED TODAY!
Thanks for this!!
Thank you 🙏🌹❤🙏🌹❤🙏🌹❤🌹Bryan.
Thank you for teaching common sense..Luther is the king protestant and yet his followers doubt him on this issue?
Luther was a reluctant standard bearer for the reformation,his desire was not to tear up and tear down the heart of Roman Catholicism,in many ways he was a good catholic.what pushed into conflict was the indulgence selling scandal,begun by pope Leo x to replenish dwindling funds due to his extravagant Lavish spending.these salesmen went from bishopric to bishopric selling time off in purgatory for cash.if you want a real hero,check out Huldrych zwingli.
By the way,I'd Rather trust Paul of Tarsus than Luther or even c s Lewis on certain catholic dogmas,that is,Paul's doctrines and teachings contain no such nonsense about mary.
@The Catholic Integralist
Ah,but was it central to life and faith to accept such a thing,i say not,maybe we can call it a disputable matter like abstaining from meat,etc,cf paul and corinthians epistles.,But there is a difficulty here,would mary really be attempting to interfere with jesus's ministry by turning up with a gathering of "cousins" trying to get access to him?
St. Joseph was a virgen as well. Mexicans love to call friends Hermanos (brothers) out of love for that friend.
Big agree there! Family doesn't always have to mean sharing the same blood.
Gloria that is correct. I don't know how many times i use the word Carnal=Brother in a days time
Hello! My friend is a Roman Catholic 😃 she was wearing a necklace with cloths at the ends. She briefly explained to me that it was related to lady Guadalupe, and it promises a painless death…
Its a scapular
Can you make a video on the Tilma and its miracle.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life, when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36-37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.
However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since MARY IS ENTRUSTED TO JOHN, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ step brothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves-Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli-honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
SO WHAT DOES THE EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVED?
ORIGEN
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
IGNATIUS Bishop of Antioch, Disciple of the Apostle John
The virginity of Mary, her giving birth, and also the death of the Lord, were hidden from the prince of this world:-three mysteries loudly proclaimed, but wrought in the silence of God. (Letter to the Ephesians circa 107 AD)
ATHANASIUS
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
JEROME
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel-that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock”
HILARY OF POITIERS
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26-27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
DIDYMUS THE BLIND
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
AUGUSTINE
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
WHAT DOES THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS BELIEVED?
MARTIN LUTHER
“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…’brothers’ really means ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)
ZWINGLI
“To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata‘ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God…and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - ‘Hail Mary’…God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow.
‘Fidei expositio,‘ the last pamphlet from his pen…There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.”
JOHN CALVIN
“He says that she [Mary of Cleophas] was the sister of the mother of Jesus, and, in saying so, he adopts the phraseology of the Hebrew language, which includes cousins, and other relatives, under the term ‘brothers.’”
@@Wgaither1 Well, God Bless you if that's what you think, I said "historical document". I also quoted the Reformers on their opinions...
MARTIN LUTHER
“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…’brothers’ really means ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)
ZWINGLI
“To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata‘ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God…and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - ‘Hail Mary’…God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow.
‘Fidei expositio,‘ the last pamphlet from his pen…There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.”
@@milomask8456Wow, so you must be a historian & Bible expert? Do you speak the original Jewish language, Aramaic and Koine Greek? I'm pretty sure you're sooo filled by the Holy Spirit & full of grace your interpretations of the scriptures are flawless.
@@milomask8456 I was referring to your comment "No. I don’t use outside interpretations to interpret scriptures". So please do enlighten us.
@@milomask8456 "why would I need outside interpretations of people when Jesus and the apostles already interpret it already."
Wow that's was soo profound it's amazing! Thank you.
Obviously, soy studio is an idiot he doesn't read the Bible.
Milo, give us the chapter and verse in the Bible where it says that scripture interpret scripture. We will be waiting.
8:58 the rabbi confirmed in Jewish culture, cousins are called brothers too. Asia, which is next to Middle East, also call cousins - brothers too. Just because Westerners don't, doesn't mean other cultures don't call cousins their brothers.
Yes it's a very Western-centric view to be so restrictive in the use of "brother." And the Scripture writers were obviously not English lol
This seems to be confirmed not just by yourself, but every person who has commented on here from different parts of the world. 👍
In Latin America we ca out counsins "primo hermano" which means cousin brother.
American Evangelicals - using the English language to change the Bible to say what they want it to say one scripture at a time since 1620.
Thanks for your detailed answer.I am from Pakistan,one of my close friends told me that letter of James is written by real brother of Jesus. I was shocked, because since childhood its my believe that mother Marry is perpetual virgin.
The age of versed Catholics is returning.
God love you
Ave Maria
St. Peter Damion pray for us!
Mark 6:3 records people becoming angry with Jesus when He taught in His hometown. They rejected Him as a prophet and responded, “‘Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him.” This passage indicates that Mary had at least seven children, including Jesus. There were at least thirty years between the time of Jesus’ birth and this encounter, which allows plenty of time for other children to have joined the family as Jesus’ siblings.
John 2:12 gives us another hint as we answer the question of whether Mary had other children: “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.” The fact that the words brothers and disciples are both used means that John was not referring to “spiritual” brothers but to familial relationships. The “brothers” and the “disciples” were different groups. Matthew 12:46 records a time when Jesus’ mother and brothers came to speak with Him. Mother and brothers, used as a phrase, implies a familial relationship. Scripture gives us no reason to think these were not the biological children of Mary.
Efforts to prove that Mary remained a perpetual virgin are not based on Scripture but on a misguided allegiance to a woman who was as fallible as any other human being (Romans 3:23). While Mary was chosen by God for the holiest of tasks, she was, in her own words, “a humble servant” (Luke 1:48). She obeyed the Lord with faithfulness, as did many other humble servants of the Lord such as Moses, Gideon, Elijah, and Hannah. For Mary to have had marital relations with her lawfully wedded husband, Joseph, would in no way have “defiled” her. Those normal relations would have likely produced other offspring who would have grown up with Jesus as their big brother (James 1:1; Jude 1:1-2). Mary is given no special place in Scripture, and any effort to exalt her to godlike status is man-made heresy.
That's in elementary argument which we answered in the video. It has an easy answer. Again, watch the video then get back to us with a more informed response. Specifically answered this question in the video.
Also, Mary and said to be blessed for all ages and all ages will call her blessed. So she has no special place? The Bible disagrees.
"Mary is given no special place in scripture" ? I guess it all depends on what you mean by "special place". If by "special place" you mean "equality with God" then you are correct to say that scripture said no such thing. However, if by "special place" you mean "Mother of God" or "Mother of christians" or "one who intercedes for us", then you are wrong to say that scripture says no such thing
Scripture doesn’t lie so if you say it does your calling god a liar. The verses this man quoted in his video pertaining to marry being a virgin and still had nothing to do with marry being a virgin. She had other kids because the Bible says so
This caholic truth is a liar
Very good video indeed.
Let's look at some facts to also back up that Mary is ever Virgin.
1. Mary tells the angel she knows not man.
2. There is no genealogy between Mary and Joseph.
3. When Jesus was missing for 3 days, Mary and Joseph searched for Him among their relatives and friends, no mention of any other siblings at all.
4. Nothing written that shows St. Joseph had children beforehand. Meaning St. Joseph too must have been a Virgin.
5. As stated in the video, giving care of the mother to a stranger other than the next eldest son is an insult to the family.
There's more but these are facts that show Mary is ever Virgin for remaining a Virgin is one of two things that please God the most.
@@Wgaither1 then you fall into the category where Jesus says even with proof, it's still not enough.
Please pray for me battling drug addiction
Absolutely!
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.
Thank you for the video and I did read and research on this topic which I repented of my theological error. Many Protestants still unfortunately believe the modern day teachers and theologians regarding Blessed ever Virgin Mary. That w hey I don’t bother asking the typical Protestant rejoinder where that in the Bible. 😄
God is perfect and he made his choice perfectly. Our Lady was and is Immaculate Conception she was made perfect for the perfect mission given to her by God to bear the Son of God to save humanity from their sins. God made Our Holy Mother Mary perfect to make a perfect Holy Family in Heaven. Amen
Amen 🙏
Some people believe she lied re. virginity and angel. But yes wonderful points!!
Thank you so much sir... In our India some people viral a rumor about Lord Jesus Christ that, he supposed to visit India during his unknown 18 years. Please sir, give a clarification about that point.
Sir ! Thank you for clarifying things for me!!!
I believe God did not choose Joseph for nothing at all. Joseph is a righteous man. He, knowing Mary as the mother of Jesus, the Son of God, had all the respect for her. He wouldn't stain Mary as she carried Jesus, our holy & perfect God.
Their marriage is the purest, most beautiful, and most selfless kind of marriage concievable: a chaste marriage! Sex is by no means bad, but the most devoted of spouses can resist each other's bodies and live to simply protect each other!
@@Justas399 1Cor7:3-5 doesn't say its a sin to deny married couple the right to have sex.
On one hand it says that you can deprive each other by mutual consent. And with self control satan can not tempt you for sexual immorality.
These 2 reasons would had been very much possible for Mary & Joseph not to had been sexually engaged.
@Tricia Perry check out a video by Brett Petrie he explains this ad they have the documents of the people that lived at that time and also if you look in the Bible at the cross in the books of Matthew Luke and John you will see that there are other Mary’s there and that the names described are the same names that are supposed to be Jesus‘s brothers and sisters but they are the children of the other Mary or so why would Jesus give his mother to John at the cross because he wanted John to take care of his mother therefore he had no brothers and sisters because this would be scandalous it was not something that was practiced at that time to To ask somebody that is not family to take care of your mother had there been existing brothers and sisters
@Tricia Perry there are many theologians and historians who wrote after Jesus died there is a description in the Bible of Mary being described as having a sister it was a sister through marriage if you look the names of those children where exactly the names that were given at the temple this being that they are not mother Mary’s children you can look this up in Matthew Luke and John as well as check out a video by Dr. Brett Petri he gives you all the historical names and the ratings which you can look up for yourself which confirm that these are not actual blood relatives of Jesus here is another thing to think about in the time of Jesus when one son would die another would take over care for the mother of the children in other words one of Jesus his brothers but Jesus actually gives his mother to John for care this would be scandalous iIf Jesus actually had brothers and sisters by blood
No, but the vast majority of women can't say that they were the mother of the Son of God. Do you seriously think Joseph would engage in intercourse with the one spotless woman who gave birth to Jesus Himself? Think!
I used to think that Jesus had step siblings because Joseph his foster father was an old widower and married Mary to honor her vow of celibacy cos someone told me that. Boy was I wrong! The vow of celibacy reduced to convenient situation, how low! If an angel told you that your wife will carry the son of God, won't you also have the grace to inspire to take the vow yourself? It was a Jewish law that married people can keep their vow too. Numbers 30.
Joseph wasn't that old.
@@louisewilliams7945 actually, he was atleast 90 years old.
@@noahgaming8833 if you will liaten to The life of Mary as seen by the mystics you will see that is wrong.. First of all use common sense. If he was in his 90' he would have been over 100 years old when he took jesus to the temple
@@louisewilliams7945 even so, there are times where he is said to be in his late 30’s or early 40’s, I’m sure there could have been time for him to have a family during his time before Mary.
👌 👏
According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in "The Life of The Blessed Virgin Mary" through visions, says Joseph avoided women, so he probably was not married before his engagement to Mary.
We still use the word 'brother' today to mean close friends, cousins etc., "Hey Bro" comes to mind!
No, the Bible clearly specifies if it's a sibling or just a relative.. ex. brother, cousin
In the Bible weren't there couples who only had 1 child (maybe in old age ----miracles from God). So, why would people think it was strange that Mary only had 1 child?
Very good point!! It happened all the time in the bible! It makes way more sense for the Christ to be an only child to me. He's set apart and special, is he not?
@@Wgaither1 If by "had trouble" you mean didn't bother to concieve at all, then I guess so lol. Historically Joseph and Mary were highly devoted yet highly chaste. They are a great example of just how selfless and pure a couple can be, even without sexual relations.
@@sandstorm7768 Yes He is. ❤
Scripture doesn't mention a lot of things. Again, show us in the Bible where the Bible says that it will mention everything. When in fact it teaches the opposite. Give us the chapter in the verse on that please. We'll be waiting.
The same logic you try to use to ask where it says that Mary remained a virgin oh, we could use the same logic to ask where it says she didn't remain a virgin. Even product and Scholars say there's not enough evidence in the Bible to prove it either way just by the Bible alone. We would disagree, but the point is that not everything's in the Bible and you are misusing the Word of God. You will be responsible for that someday on Judgment Day.
Jesus giving Mother Mary to John at the crucifixion is the best defeater of the claim that Mary had other children. And the fact that "brother" or "brethren" is used elsewhere in Scripture to mean relative, is a good buttresser.
@@Wgaither1 Is that a legitimate question, or are you just trying to insult the Mother and adopted father of Jesus?
To believe a virgin birth takes faith. To believe a married couple never had congical rights is just gullible.
Thank you for your opinion. The former is much more difficult than the latter, and so it is not gullible to believe the latter. In fact it happened a lot in the Jewish religion. There was a whole Jewish sect that practiced celibacy even in marriage.
I always thought that is Jesus had brothers and sisters they would have been with Mary at the foot of the cross! I know Jewish families and how they Revere the mother. There is no way whatsoever that his brothers and sisters, if he really had them, would have not been present at the cross with their mother!! And surely Jesus would not have given her into the care of John the Apostle!
Very good point!!
@Brian Farley You can show that cow all the evidence, but she will keep spitting her poison no matter what.
@@elneneco5035 Tricia is a protestant troll. Get behind satan
@@OzCrusader She is looking for attention.
Covid lockdowns are causing stress on elder people like Tricia.
Catholic truth could you make a video on 'proof of Peter's existence in rome'
Yes, we will talk about that topic eventually. I think we may have covered it briefly in our video, origin of the Catholic Church.
@@astutik8909 no I trust Peter is in rome tradition tell us not bible alone always but I want catholic truth to reply something about this
The Bible doesn't tell you everything. And it doesn't dictate the entire life of Peter. All Christians unanimously said that Peter eventually made his way to Rome with Paul where they both died under Nero. There is no evidence to the contrary.
@@astutik8909 listen then 1peter 5:13 Peter tells he is in rome even it is Babylon Babylon code word for rome understood
@@astutik8909 really huh see the letters of pope Clement or the book acts of Peter which is outside of new testament yet it proves Peter's existence in rome Don't always depend on bible alone but bible+traditions see and you will find acts of Peter book pdf and see Peter in rome
😶 Is Sharon a Catholic now?
May God bless you and May The Immaculate Heart be our Refuge!
Yes she is!
Is the feast of trumpets actually happening October 7th 2021
Hi are you familiar with the documentary called CAESAR'S MESSIAH: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus? You should do a video on it if you haven't.
You know, it's so odd that even Muslims recognized the status of our Blessed Mother and honour her in their own appropriate way, while nonCatholic Christians allow themselves to be blinded, when reading scriptures, by the anti-Catholic hate and propaganda which their leader Martin Luther has programmed into the Protestant ideology. So sad.
They do not see that Mary is what she is simply by virtue of Jesus, which implies that the honour the Church accords her is actually directed at God and his enduring mercy and faithfulness to humanity, in spite of our misery and unworthiness. Behind the façade, it's actually God that Catholics honour for what he did for humanity through the human instrument, Virgin Mary. Remove Jesus from the scene, and Mary becomes just another young virgin girl in the Nazareth of those days. Period!
When I pick up my rosary, I think of Mary only in relation to God's overwhelming love for us. I hardly ever dwell on Mary for her own sake as an individual, except in connection to God and his merciful love for humanity.
Actually, Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary his whole life, even though he became Protestant.
😎😎Actually Luther Loved Mary and said it was ok to pray the Hail Mary to bad he got everything else wrong ..Calvin on the other had detested her.
Wait till the antichrist rveals himself, exalting himself over God and even the unholy father the pope, taking over operations on earth.
This is not entirely true. I once listened to a Presbyterian minister who's Sunday sermon was about honoring Mary as an example of obedience and devotion to Jesus. My father, himself a devout Protestant Christian, had a profound admiration for Mary. While Protestants may not emphasize the devotion to Mary as vehemently as Catholics, we are not as far apart from our Protestant brothers as you indicate.
@@bobbridges896Thanks for the information. Of course, it doesn't mean that no nonCatholics are giving the issue a thought. However, I guarantee you that Mary is a big deal for many of them. My simple take is, if you cannot honour her, at least do not dishonour her either, just because you hate the Catholic Church.
Matthew 13:55-56 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?r Isn’t his mother’ss name Mary, and aren’t his brotherst James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
The brothers of Jesus or the adelphoi (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb")[1][Notes 1] are named in the New Testament as James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude,[2] and unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew.[3] They may have been: (1) the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Joseph, (2) sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas and sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus; or (3) sons of Joseph by a former marriage. While option 1 is described as the "most natural inference" from the New Testament, those who uphold the perpetual virginity of Mary reject the idea of biological brethren and maintain that the brothers and sisters were either cousins of Jesus (option 2, the position of the Catholic Church) or children of Joseph from a previous marriage (option 3, the Eastern Orthodox Churches).[4] The Lutheran Churches have accepted both option 2 and option 3 as being valid explanations for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.[5]
It did not say Uncles children. So they can not be cousins.
The word used unless modified by another word Of the same womb.
And Joseph was told to take Mary after Jesus was born. So there is absolutely no way that Mary was a virgin all her life!!
God Bless.
Amen Jesus came through a virgin and Mary was an ever virgin
Luke 1 records Mary’s conversation with the angel Gabriel, who told her she was to be the mother of God’s Messiah. At that time, Mary was a young virgin engaged to be married to a man named Joseph. Some have taught that, due to the sacred nature of the virgin birth, Mary had no other children and remained a virgin throughout her life. However, Matthew 1:24-25 seems to counter that teaching and imply that Mary had other children: “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” The key word that tells us that Mary had other children after Jesus is until.
Until means “up to the time of.” It implies that an action did occur after a prescribed pause. Matthew did not end the sentence by saying, “He did not consummate their marriage.” He says, “He did not consummate their marriage until. . . .” This wording indicates that the action (of consummating the marriage) did occur after the birth of Christ. Matthew also makes a point of telling us that Joseph “took Mary home as his wife.” Matthew’s readers would naturally conclude that Mary became Joseph’s wife in every sense of the word. There is no scriptural evidence to support the assertion that Mary remained a perpetual virgin or that she had no other children. In fact, the Bible tells us the opposite.
The word until absolutely does not imply that an action happened afterward. And recorded many scriptures in the video you didn't watch to prove this. This is why all Christians unanimously down Through the Ages believe that Mary was an Ever virgin even the Protestant reformers. Your belief that she had other children, because you don't understand the Bible and only read it in English is a new man-made tradition of men and not from God.
Actually you are mistaken. The word "until" doesn't ALWAYS mean that things change afterwards. The statement: " Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she bore her firstborn son " was meant to EMPHASIZE the fact that Mary conceived Jesus strictly by the power of the Holy Spirit (without any biological contribution from Joseph). The statement was not meant to suggest that Joseph started having sexual relations with Mary AFTER the birth of Jesus Christ. The Koine Greek word for "until" in Matt 1:25 is "heos". This is exact same word used in the following words of Jesus: "I will be with you UNTIL the end of age " (Matt 28:20). Does the fact that He used the word "until" ("heos") mean that Jesus was going to STOP being with His disciples AFTER the end of age ? Of course not ! Even AFTER the end of age, Jesus was still going to be with His followers. The Bible makes it clear that when Jesus comes again at the end of age, He will gather His disciples from every part of the world, and they will be with Him FOREVER (1 Thessalonians 4:17). So, the use of the word "until" is NOT definite proof that things will
change afterwards. If Joseph "knew" Mary or had "sexual relations" with her, the Bible could easily have said so. But the Bible never said so. This idea that some people have that Joseph "knew" Mary is simply out of speculation as to the implication of the use of the word "until" in Matt 1:25 which some people wrongly believe to ALWAYS mean a change of status afterwards.
One more thing. Just because the Bible refers to Mary as the "wife" of Joseph doesn't mean that his relationship with her was like that of a husband and wife in EVERY aspect (including having sexual relations). The Bible referred to Jesus as the "Son" of the carpenter (Joseph), but the relationship between Joseph and Jesus was not like that of a father and son in EVERY aspect. For instance, Joseph was not responsible for the pregnancy that brought Jesus into the world
So what other language am I supposed to read it in? So you are saying that the Bible isn’t the truth. That it didn’t come from God? Honestly, what does it matter whether she had other children or not and or was a virgin until she died? The Gospel is about Jesus Christ our only Lord and Savior. It seems you are giving her importance to fit your narrative of it being ok to pray to her. She was a vessel God chose to use. That’s it. The main character is Jesus and no one else. She is considered a saint but so are the rest of us who are in the body of Christ. A true Christian( means follower of Christ). Only seeks Jesus. . The only one we need is Jesus.
@@calirios7945 Listen to me. I am not saying that the Bible is not the truth. I only pointed out the inaccuracy of interpreting the word "until" to ALWAYS mean that there would be a change in situation afterwards
@@milomask8456 Look Milo, it is obvious that you have DECIDED to believe that Mary had other children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, no matter what anyone says. Well, if that is your choice, I will leave it to you. 1 Corinthians 15:25 says : " He (Christ) will reign UNTIL he put all his enemies under his feet " . Does it mean that Christ will STOP reigning AFTER his enemies have been put under his feet ? No. Because Revelation 11:15 clearly says that Christ will "reign forever and ever".
Honestly, I am tired of having this particular discussion with you. Go ahead and believe whatever you wish
Brian, since I learned about the discovery in the 90's of the Feto-Maternal Microchimerism, I believe this is an extremely strong case to justify both our Lady's Perpetual Virginity and her Assumption. If either of these were not true, that would mean that living cells of Jesus would have passed through her body to any other supposed younger sibling who would have later died and experienced bodily corruption along with those Jesus' living cells. Same with our Lady's body carrying in her some of His Divine living cells. If upon the end of her life she had not been bodily Assumed to Heaven, those living cells of Jesus in her bloodstream would have experienced corruption and/or imprisonment in the grave along with her body. Can you please share your thoughts on this as a strong argument for the need of these two Marian Dogmas to be true?
I am looking for a reference from Revelation about the Lamb of God going through a door or gate and that only Him can use that door or gate. Would you remember or know the scripture in looking for?
No, we wouldn't. Hes the only one who could open the seals. But we don't know anything about a door or a gate. Sorry
Psa 69:8 'I have become an outcast to my kindred, stranger to my mother’s children'
So basically Mary lived as a cloistered nun?
No. Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist, as Brian explained. According to some early Christian documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin and she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations. There are hints in the Bible that Joseph was a lot older than Mary and could have been married before and had children - but not with Mary.
@@candyclews4047Lies
DaVinci code is Hollywood.
Mary's vow of virginity is tradition not fact.
My question is what difference does it make? Mary was free to have children or not. Jewish Rabbi's are not a great source for Christian teachings.... BTW
They are trying so bad since 1850 to uncredited our church, specially our Virgen Mary. but what they don’t get it is that GOD is the founder, the builder of this church and NO ONE, will destroy it.
@@nofragmentado So upon further research I found 2 things true, 1. Brothers can mean extended family such as cousins. 2. Nowhere does it say Mary had other children. So I am open to corrections as they are revealed. Also where some Catholics go wrong is to elevate Mary beyond her status and this becomes idolatry. And yes as a ex-Catholic I recognize the hatred Protestants have for Catholicism when Catholics are far more correct in doctrines and traditions.
@Tricia Perry I never said not truth, it's a held tradition, not all traditions are correct or have value in our obedience and functionality in the body of Christ. We must research and come to an understanding that is in line with the Scriptures. Also, please refrain from bringing up satan in these conversations as this is the ignorant position of protestant churches when they disagree with any denomination.
I think it's because they translate the word still too brother and sister and don't use the correct term. I looked at the oldest copy of the Bible there is an all through the Old testament the word brethren which translates as kinsmen was used to describe jesus's brothers. However, the actual word for brother as a blood related was only used in reference to his apostles Peter, Andrew, James and John. They have a separate Greek term for them for them.
this is why some people switch up john the baptist being Jesus’ brother and cousin. I heard the same thing with that word “brother” being used interchangeably. I’m not a catholic but I don’t think this particular matter would make much difference to me in my faith. ever virgin or not, the message and everything remains unchanged for me :)
Exodus 29: 37-42 explicitly shows *daily red meat for food, twice a day, every day of the week,* *wine to drink* twice day and *worship twice EVEN on Sunday, from the very commandant of God.*
While the Adventist's shun meats for food, God commands the Priests to offer (SANCTIFIED RED) MEAT unto GOD and for them to EAT IT TWICE A DAY,. The entire Ellen G. White doctrine on meats goes up in flames! Add to that, the "hin (approx 1 gallon) of WINE"
To make matters worse for Adventist's, God commands the worship of God by his Priests TWICE EVERY SUNDAY, IN THE MORNING AND EVENING!
Sorry, but that is not what it says. These were offerings to God. They didn't eat or drink it. Sacrificed to God
@@onesneak7668 Actually, they used part of it for sacrifice, and part of it was for the priest to eat. It depended on what type of sacrifice they were offering. But the sacrifices under the Old Covenant are really irrelevant. We live under the New Covenant and under the New Covenant there are no restrictions on what kind of meat we may eat. " And He said to them, " Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?( Thus He declared all foods clean.)- Mark 7:18-19. Also, " Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage, and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."- 1st Timothy 4:1-5.
@@jamestrotter3162 I know it doesn't matter now. But ifwe're going to quote the Old testament we have to be accurate.
No where in that scripture does it say they ate it.
@@onesneak7668 Well, actually, it does. " The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy, and when any of its blood is splashed on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was splashed in a holy place. And the earthenware vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. But if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, that shall be scoured and rinsed in water. Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most holy.- Leviticus 6:24-29.
@@jamestrotter3162 NVM
Mary couldn't have been sinless, because she said - My soul doth rejoice in my Lord and Savior.
Mary was as humble as a person could be, but not because of her own merits. She called God her savior because He made her that way and preserved her from sin. If God did not protect her from birth, she quite probably would've become corrupted by sin like anyone else.
Gabriel didn't open his greeting with the usual "do not be afraid" like angels usually do. He said "HAIL Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee! Blessed art thou among women." Even the angels knew she was something special.
@Tricia Perry Easy, pal... I do not take lightly to be called a demented devil. Demons HATE Mary and want nothing to do with her. She said it herself, "My soul magnifies the Lord." Everything she does is for the good of God, no more and no less. She is a guide, an example, a messanger, a disciple. She is not the Savior.
Mary and Joseph did have very good relations, the best kind of of relations--completely selfless and chaste relations. A couple does not need to have sex to be devoted. In fact, the most virtuous of couples can live without it. Saint Paul talks about this, how some are called to chastity but others are allowed to engage sexually.
@@sandstorm7768 Nowhere in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary or the Apostles. Jesus said ask the Father in my name. He also said no man gets to the Father except thru me. He also said no man comes to me except my Father draw him.
@Tricia Perry she was no longer his mother? How did she stop being his mother?
@Tricia Perry If this is an example of the silly and childish 'theology' you are getting from your cult leader PK; it is time to wake up and leave it. What a load of nonsense.
So Brian, the one question I've always wondered..."how does your attempt to prove that Joseph and Mary did not have "relations" affect your relationship with Jesus?" My walk with Jesus is unaffected by whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born, or didnt.
It doesn't affect our relationship either. And we never claimed it did. However, this is the unanimous belief of Christianity down through the ages, and so we hold to this truth as opposed to people who have changed it as of late.
@CatholicTruthOfficial so basically the two sides debate over something that has no bearing on Christianity. I'm sure Jesus is pleased.🙂
@CatholicTruthOfficial my point is, both Roman Catholics and Protestants waste precious time debating this topic as precious souls are being deposited in hell every day. Makes me sad.
Joseph & Mary had 8 children. Jesus, James, Joses, Jude, Simon, Mary (Mary Cleophas, Mary Jacob, Mary the Gypsy. She was married toJacob Cleophas), also Joanna & Sarah.
By “know a man”, that means sex in the Bible. She wasn’t married yet, she was engaged to Joseph and hadn’t had sex yet. You’re really stretching the scripture to come to the conclusion that Mary was always a virgin. Honestly why does it matter? She was a virgin before she had Christ and after lived a normal life…so what?
Does scripture say Mary lived a normal life after having Jesus? It would seem to me that being the mother of the Son himself would be anything but normal.
@@killianmiller6107 if God desired her veneration (boarding on worship) why is she not mentioned in such a way in scripture? We are to recognize her as blessed (as scripture states) but to pray to her as the mother of God? Shouldn’t we devote our life to Christ and not a mortal human? These are honest questions, I’m Catholic curious, but I do not understand the whole Mary thing. I know, I know tradition…tradition…but where is the scriptural basis of praying to Mary?
Exhumed. The Blessed Virgin Mary did not live a "normal" life. She is the Mother of God. The Church infallibly declares Mary to be the Immaculate Conception. A special and unique creation.
@@YahLovesYou86 it’s not direct prayer in the sense of prayer to God, it’s intercession. I am asking Mary to pray for me like a friend asks another to pray for them while they are going through difficult times
Yes it does mean sex in the Bible. But it does not imply that Mary and Joseph had sex. Be covered that in the video. And we sure why that argument doesn't hold any weight.
According to Luke Mary did her job as a servant and doesn’t get extra honor. As well as having children in marriage is holy and correct.
Actually, according to Luke Mary is blessed among women, and all generations will call her blessed. That's not said of any other person. (LK. 1:48)
@@CatholicTruthOfficialthese are LIES and your opinion. None of this is said in scriptures.....all assumptions
Funny how you all can say the word then make adjustments not spoken of in the word to justify these lies
No Mary did not have any other children, but I heard that Mary had a little lamb that followed her every where she went. Has anybody else heard about it too?
Yes, and with mint jelly.
Thank you 🙋♂️
While I do agree with some of what you say, the Holy Bible is clear that Mary had other children after Jesus was born with Joseph.
In Luke 2:7 we see that Jesus is Mary's "First Born Son" not "Only Son" as in John 3:16 "Only Begotten Son".
Also in Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31, and Luke 8:19 we see the brothers of Jesus mentioned and the word in the Greek is "Adelphos" meaning "brother of same womb".
I understand the Catholics then like to claim that they were His cousins but that word is "Anepsios" which is not used here but it is used in Colossians 4:10 speaking of Barnabus' cousin Mark.
I always thought, why did Our Lady marry Joseph in the first place, if they weren’t going to have sexual relations, and have children *from their union* . Doesn’t that mean that their marriage was *invalid* or *void* because it was *never consummated* , genuinely curious😅
The word "consummate" used in some Bible translations of Matthew 1:25 simply refers to the usual sexual relations that takes place between a husband and wife. This is why in other Bible translations, it reads as follows: "but he KNEW HER NOT until she bore her first born son" or "he had NO SEXUAL RELATIONS with her until she gave birth to her first born son". But let me make it clear that Joseph didn't have to "Know" Mary or become sexually intimate with her in order for his marriage to her to be VALID. This is why the Catholic Church maintains that such intimacy between them never happened, and that this didn't affect the validity of their marriage. Matthew 1:24 tells us that Joseph "took Mary home AS HIS WIFE". It doesn't say: "he took Mary home as the woman who would become his wife after he knew her". In other words, Mary was ALREADY his WIFE when he took her home. He didn't have to "Know" her before she could become his valid wife.
What does it mean to be a firstborn? To be the oldest among several children, or be an only child?
Luke 2:7 "And she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."
Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Matthew 1:25 "And he knew her not till she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS."
"knew her" is an archaic way of saying sexual intercourse.
If you want to know everything and I mean everything. Please read the book; The Mystical City of God written by the venerable Maria of Agreda. In order of the holy mother Mary herself. Everything from just before her immaculate conception till her assumption is there. Mary was already married . Mary and Joseph both stayed pure. All your questions will be answered. Hail Mary most pure, pray for us 🙏
On the book of Ruth is states that Naomi had a son, when it was actually Ruth, so it it all the family
2:30, "You have God as your son", but does that make her equal to God or worthy of the same worship as him, as most Catholics believe?
Of course it doesn't make her = God and no Catholic actually thinks that period God is eternal, Almighty, alpha and omega, and Mary is a human being. Not even close. She's dust compared to God. So, you're misrepresenting or misunderstandingCatholics, friend.
Fact - Even his family thought Jesus was crazy, until they final understood. Family wasn't used to include the whole world in the written passage.
I suppose my question is "why are Catholics so obsessed with this historical question?" Whatever the answer, it doesn't change the nature of Jesus' birth and divinity, nor does it change anything about the central tenets of the Catholic faith.
You are correct that it does not change the nature of Jesus, or his divinity, but all truth is truth. And we are on a quest for truth. I don't think we are has Obsessed with talking about it as Protestants are in attacking it which is why we defend it and make videos about it.
It seems Protestants are more obsessed with this historical question. It often comes up in the comment sections of various videos even if those videos are about completely different topics.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial There is so little known about the 25 to 30 years of Jesus' life and family between His childhood and the advent of His ministry. The apostles and disciples wrote down what they felt was most important. Without historical records or divine revelation, we can only speculate. But we can focus on the events and teachings that make up the New Testament and take a hint from their authors about where our focus should be as disciples of Jesus. God bless you in your quest for truth.
Logically speaking, it is more believable that God could have RESTORED her Virginity not after Blessed Mary gave birth to Christ Jesus in Bethlehem as the FIRSTBORN Son, but after she had fulfilled her Marital Relationship, Duties, Obligations, and Vows to CONSUMMATE their marriage and bore their own biological sons and daughters through the Sacrament of Matrimony/Marriage, and after St. Joseph had died that Blessed Mary was a Free-Woman from her Marital VOWS... Thus, that was the rightful time for the RESTORATION of her VIRGINITY by God before she died, to remind us all that a VIRGIN MAIDEN gave birth to the Son of God.
God took her Virginity with her permission, thus, after the Death of her Husband (St. Joseph), that was the rightful time for God to RESTORE her Virginity because she was FREE from her Marital Vows (Sacrament of Matrimony) and Marital Duties/Obligations/Responsibilities to have sons and daughters of their own.
For me, there was no Biblical and Logical Explanation regarding the Roman Catholic Doctrine of PERPETUAL VIRGINITY, wherein Blessed Mary even after she gave birth to Christ Jesus, miraculously still remained a VIRGIN till her death ... which means both Mary and Joesph decided to take/accept freely the "Chastity Vows of CELIBACY" (no marital sex) while they both took the OATH under God the "Sacrament of Matrimony/Marriage"... this doctrine was WRONG and NON-BIBLICAL...
For me, that was the Real STRECH Doctrine/teaching by the Catholic Church...
Catholic NUNS and PRIESTS can take/accept FREELY the "Chastity Vows of CELIBACY" because they were not under OATH to God with the "Sacrament of Matrimony/ Marriage Vows," wherein 2 Human Bodies (Man/Husband & Woman/Wife ) become ONE SOUL (united as one), spiritually...
When the People of God (Christians and Israelites/Jews) choose/decide to be under the Sacrament of Matrimony/Marriage, they have committed an OATH under God the Vows of Faithfulness, Love, Honor, Duties, Obligations, and Responsibilities to their own spouse and to God... by bringing forth and multiply (bear children) to propagate the world with Children of God...
Any Christian who chooses to freely take/accept the "Chastity Vows of CELIBACY" (no marital sex/no children to bear) while they are under OATH to God with the Sacrament of Matrimony/ Marriage is committing a terrible crime/atrocity of SIN against the WILL (prerogatives) of God...That is a VIOLATION unto the WILL of God, logically speaking...
For Christians, only through the DEATH of our spouse, that we are RELEASED (Truly FREE) from the Sacrament of Matrimony/Marriage Vows... and not through DIVORCE, but according to the Law of Christ Jesus and not from Moses or Mosaic Laws... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.
It doesn't seem like you watched the video. Cause we answered all of this in the video. His first born does not mean that he was the First born of many. First born was an inheritance title. So the first male was called the first board even if he was an only child, so, it doesn't mean that she had other children by this title.
God did not take her virginity at all. Which is why she asked to the angel who appeared to her, how can this be since I don't know a man? But she did know a man. She was engaged to Joseph. She would have been married and had consummated the marriage shortly after. But she had already taken on vow of virginity, which is why she asked the question how it could be. This was also the belief of all the earliest Christians unanimously and even all of the protestant reformers.
There is 0 biblical evidence that says she has other kids. Jesus did not have any blood brothers or blood sisters. Mary had no other children. The Greek word for brother could mean brother, but it could also mean cousin, uncle, nephew, close friend, etc. You're assuming it's brother but without any evidence accept that thats what you want it to be. So just reading in English doesn't help your cause.
Second, when you compare the 4 crucifixion scenes and the Road to Emmeus, you see his "brothers" belong to another Mary. There were several Mary's at the cross. This is what all of the earliest Christians taught also. The were sons of Mary the wife of Cloepus.
Thus, they are not blood brothers which is why no Christian in history including the Reformers believed this.
Third, at the cross, Jesus gave his mother to John the Apostle, which would have never happened if he had other brothers and sisters according to Jewish custom.
John 19:25 - Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mk. 15:40 - There were also women looking on from a distance, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.
Mt. 27:56 - Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Luke 24:10-11 - Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). Mary was part of the Essene Jewish community. They were known for taking vows of chastity, and celibacy, even in marriage. So while it would have been odd compared to the usual, it's not as odd as having the second person of the Trinity as your own son. Clearly this wasn't a normal situation or marriage. This was a singular calling to have and to raise the Son of God.
One of the mains reasons the Spanish Inquisition punished "protestants" was due to the blasphemies against Mary.
The Spanish Inquisition was not for Protestants. It what's for Catholics, and those claiming to be Catholic.
Matthew 13:55 NIV
“Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
We answered that in the video. They are not his blood brothers. Sorry.
His mother had a sister named mary too they could be his cousins "Standing on the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25) Mary was the most common Jewish woman name
catholic theology v/s word of God
Please read carefully, 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).
As a Jewish woman, why would Marybe betrothed to be married if she had taken a vow of celibacy?
Some Jews in the ancient Essene community took vows of celibacy to God, even in marriage. It wasn't the norm to be sure, but it was known among them.
Contrary to widely publicized claims, Jesus was not an Essene despite some similarities between these groups.49 For example, both Jesus’s movement (as described in the New Testament) and the Essenes pooled their possessions and held communal meals. And, of course, both were apocalyptic movements which anticipated the imminent arrival of the end of days (or even thought it was already under way). However, there are also important differences between these groups. For example, Jesus did not preach that there is no human free will because everything is preordained by God, nor does the New Testament indicate that Jesus’s followers anticipated the arrival of more than one messiah. The major differences between the two groups concern their approaches to purity observance and membership. Whereas the Essenes observed the highest level of Jewish ritual purity due to their priestly lifestyle, the Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus was unconcerned about coming into contact with the most severely impure members of Jewish society, including hemorrhaging women, lepers, and even corpses. And whereas the Essenes were an exclusive movement, with only a small sector of the Jewish population eligible to apply for full membership, Jesus reportedly welcomed everyone to join his followers. In other words, despite some similarities, including an apocalyptic outlook, Jesus and his movement were diametrically opposed to the Essenes in fundamental ways. Although Jesus was not an Essene, it is possible that John the Baptist was a member of the sect at some point. After all, according to the Gospel accounts John was active in the wilderness near Qumran; he reportedly was from a priestly family and lived an ascetic lifestyle (similar to the Essenes); and his emphasis on baptism recalls the Essenes’s concern with purification through immersion in water (as reflected in the large numbers and sizes of the miqvaʾot at Qumran). Therefore, John might have had some contact with the Qumran community and perhaps even was a member at one point in his life. Even if this is the case-and it is completely speculative-by the time we read about John in the Gospel accounts, he could not have been an Essene, as indicated by differences in his clothing (he reportedly wore camel hair clothing with a leather belt, whereas full members of the Essene sect wore linen like priests); his diet (John reportedly consumed locusts and wild honey whereas full members of the Essenes consumed the pure food and drink of the sect); and his theology of baptism (which differs from that of Essene ritual purification).
I hate to be a voice of dissent here, but I do so for two reasons (and mind you, I am NOT a hater of the Roman church, nor will I cuss anybody out who is a member of the Roman church): 1) This is a bridge too far doctrinally, because there is no record of Mary also being born a virgin; and 2) because whether one believes in this doctrine (teaching) or not, it is not necessary for salvation. That said, if one believes that Jesus was NOT "born of a virgin," this is problematic, because the Bible *most certainly* teaches otherwise, *and* in both the Old and New Testaments! You will notice that I am strictly in line with the teachings that our Saviour WAS born of a virgin, despite it not being "scientific" or "logical" -- what kind of a God would we have, if He couldn't perform miracles that defy logic and science?
On the other hand, I get really frustrated with modern Evangelicalism that focuses far more on current logic than being able to simply leave some things unresolved as "mystery." Having attended Evangelical churches for almost 40 years now, not even being able to recite the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed really bothers me! Heck, we don't even usually recite Jesus' prayer, as the Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches do every week! (And I may be forgetting a couple of other denominations who do this...)
My theological position is predominantly Lutheran, as in my opinion, he pegged the only doctrines I really care about: 1) salvation; and 2) Holy Communion.
We make the Bible far too complicated most of the time!
Regardless of my posting here, I bring you greetings and peace, and I continue to work for better understanding between our varying theological positions, and that without malice.
No please make it in your next video for the sake of the one who aspires to be a Dominican priest
Another thing is the repetitious prayer of the rosary. Catholics keep on repeating their prayers. But the Bible says in Matthew 6:7, that when we pray we must not keep on repeating our prayers. Coz you know what even before we pray, God already knows what we are going to tell Him or ask from Him. Again, let's go back to the Bible.
Protestants love repeating the same lies over and over again.
Amen. They don't speak on this because it is against God the HOLY GHOST 😢
how do we know she was a perpetual virgin from writings 200 years after she left earth?
Watch the video and see...
I realise that the catholic scholars study the bible, but it will be nice if they teach their doctrine using the bible all the time! It’s not important for them but it’s important for us!
Check out this book by a well known scholar, Masada from Jewish revolt to modern myth. By Jodi Magness.