Getting married and having children is not a sin. In fact it is a vocation, especially when one is raising the Savior of the world. Why would it contradict Marys nature?
Not only does the New Testament teach that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that Mary was their mother, the Old Testament teaches it too. In Psalm 69 there is a prophecy concerning Christ that was fulfilled in the New Testament. " Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me."- Psalm 69:7-9.
Yeah it's interesting in psalm 69:5 it says... "O God, You know my foolishness; And my sins are not hidden from You." And as a result the catholic apologists say "Well not everything written in psalm 69 applies to Jesus, because Jesus wasn't a sinner, so then verse 8 cannot apply to Jesus about having siblings." Which I agree Jesus did not sin, but was perfectly sinless, and the spotless Lamb of God. However in the Catholic Douey Rhiems bible in psalm 68:6 which reads like this... "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my offences are not hidden from thee." The study notes for psalm 68:6 say this... "Verse 6 My foolishness and My offenses: which my enemies IMPUTE to Me: or the follies and sins of men, which I HAVE TAKEN UPON MYSELF." The psalms are numbered differently in the catholic douey rehiems bible. Psalm 68 in the Douey Rhiems is the same as psalm 69 in all other bibles. But they in the study notes apply this to Jesus in the sense that He Himself did not sin, but was accused of sin by His enemies, and bore our sins. And that is how psalm 69:5 applies to Jesus. Not that Jesus had sinned but our sins were imputed to Him. The inconsistencies are ridiculous!
So on one hand you have the apologists arguing that verse 5 does not apply to Jesus, because it would make it sound like Jesus was a sinner. But on the other hand you have catholic academics applying verse 5 to Jesus, saying that Jesus was wrongfully accused of sin, and bore our sins. And that is how verse 5 can apply to Jesus. Interestingly though the douey is silent on verse 9 in psalm 68, which is psalm 69:8 in other bibles about Being a stranger to my mothers children. No notes on that verse at all.
Thank you for bringing that up. The New Testament references Psalm 69 multiple times as prophecy of Christ... Psalm 69:4 (John 15:25) Psalm 69:9 (John 2:17/Romans 15:3) Psalm 69:21 (Matthew 27:34/John 19:29) Psalm 69:22-23 (Romans 11:9-10) Psalm 69:25 (Acts 1:20)
James Trotter, A friend of mine and I had an in-depth discussion on why the perpetual virginity of Mary is not scriptural, including discussing Psalm 69, and demonstrating that it was more than that single verse that prophesies about Jesus, but the entire Psalm is about Jesus. My friend demonstrates reverse footnotes showing different verses in Psalms 69 and where they are fulfilled in the New Testament. So when it says that His mother had children who were estranged from him, this is indeed a prophecy about Mary having children after the birth of Jesus. Catholics and eastern orthodox will insist that this is talking about King David’s mother and “her” children, not Jesus mother’s and her children. But it ignores the fact that the ENTIRE Psalm is a prophecy about Jesus. It begins around the two hour mark if you want to advance to it. ua-cam.com/video/TexNvNU-ldM/v-deo.html
James, I served as the radio engineer for the late Dr Walter Martin all the way back in 1974 after he came to California from New York. After he passed into glory in 1989, I met Hank at a video editing facility where I was doing voice over work. Hank asked me to rejoin CRI as the director of media (radio, video & film), which I did. I only stayed for two years due to profound issues I saw working every day with Hank. I was interviewed last year on Cultish with Jeff Durbin about my years of working with Dr Martin. I'm only writing you to say Thank You for exposing the Rank Heresy Hank has fallen into. But it was of no surprise to see him convert to the Orthodox tradition based on what I saw in his character. As a former acquaintance and student of Greg Bahnsen and Roushas Rushdoony all the way back in the early 70's I didn't really fit in very well at CRI... hahaha! But I was pleasantly surprised to see him embrace partial preterism!! Very sad to see his true colors exposed as I saw back in 1989. At any rate, if you read this long comment, God richly bless your efforts and Keep up the good work!
Thank you for posting. I’d heard very troubling things about his character, from others close to Dr. Martin. It’s unfortunate that CRI has devolved into this. However, YHWH works in His ways, in His time, and now, Hanegraaff is exposed and his empire is a shell of its former self. I’m so grateful that someone shot a photo of his chrismation. Based upon what Hanegraaff said in his interviews after the fallout, it seems he only came clean about his conversion because of that exposure. We’d only have noticed, over time, that his answers to certain questions were odd or evasive and erroneous. He’d likely have tried continuing to milk CRI for his very high lifestyle. Dr. Martin built CRI for God’s glory. It’s okay that it’s faded. Nothing of this world, endures.
It’s tantamount to a lie for him to have continued being the “Bible Answer Man”, when he clearly thinks that Scripture only has limited authority, and only through the hands of the “church”. Outrageous.
@@KristiLEvans1 hanegraaff was one of the first apologist I started listening to over 15 years ago. When he converted to Eastern Orthodox it was one-hundred-percent illogical and irrational. I remember him saying numerous times that he still stands 100% behind everything he taught and everything he wrote. Yet what he taught and wrote would be considered heretical by the Eastern Orthodox church and yet he converts to Eastern Orthodox. It made absolutely zero sense, the man is a walking contradiction. I regret that I gave two of his books away. The two books that I gave away were perfectly sound, but I regret the fact that someone may find those books and think that he is a sound teacher. He is not a sound teacher, and I should have just thrown his books away, but I actually gave two of his books away before he converted to Eastern orthodoxy. Sometimes someone's theology can be straight as an arrow, just the person is still devoid of the spirit and not born again. Ravi Zacharias in my opinion is a perfect example. Just someone who learned the arguments, and learned how to parrot them. But never had a saving faith. At least that's my opinion of Ravi Zacharias. And I fear the same for Hank.
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 beautifully and poignantly said. I listened to Hanegraaff 18-25 years ago, while I was on the road, so I feel your pain and regret. He was my first exposure to serious apologetics. Unlike Ravi, Hank KNEW and preached a clear, concise, true Gospel. How Hanegraaff could be such a deceiver… I’ll never know. It still doesn’t make sense, after all these years. As for Ravi, only the Lord knows the disposition of his soul. I suppose we should pray and hope.
That's because he simply red history, And came to the Exact same conclusion That I did. Protestantism is not historical and teaches doctrines that are alien and foreign to Christianity.
@@jesuguru2394 Catholic and Eastern Christianity are by far the most historical Christians out there. You're doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura have absolutely no historicity whatsoever. It's not taught in the scriptures, There is absolutely no Church father that taught it. And it wasn't even being taught in the mediaeval ages well until the 16th century. Protestantism has indoctrinated you to such a degree that you literally believe that rejecting invented beliefs from the 16th century and opting instead for the original teachings of the 1st christians is tantamount to apostasy. You make a better case for having never been in Christianity then me and Hank do for having left it.
@@AurelioCortez the funny thing is that Hank had Svendsen on the BAM to promote "Who Is My Mother". And Hanks Bible Answer Book has a chapter on the syblings of Jesus where he recommends Svendsen's book. Why not refute Svendsen instead of just repeating old arguments that Svendsen critiques.
It is. If you read the New Testament with a Jewish context in mind, I think you will see the evidence overwhelmingly supports Mary having had been a Virgin throughout her life.
@@thepalegalilean Jesus had brothers and sisters if Mary was a Perpetual virgin and divine as the Catholics picture her then it would be in the Bible that would be very important but it is not there.
@@FormerTrucker Why would it be there? The whole message behind the New Testament is that there is now a new covenant. God's people is no longer a specific ethnic group, But all of the world's people based upon the blood that Jesus Christ shed on the cross. And the makuleke ception, While it is present in scripture, is not the focus of the New Testament. Furthermore this was being believed in the 2nd century, So there's every probability That this was being believed in the 1st.
@@thepalegalilean well that's a debate about the church fathers from the second century on up. But the immaculate conception belief as well as the Perpetual virgin the so-called custodian of death. If these things were true when Jesus taught us to pray he would not have said Our Father Who Art in Heaven he would have said Hail Mary full of grace. None of the prayers of the Apostles none of the teachings of the Apostles teaches that Mary is anything but a woman blessed AMONG women not above them.
Catholics and Orthodox have to admit this isnt a debate of tradition vs Protestantism. Its a debate of tradition vs academia. No scholar who isnt guided by tradition has arrived at their conclusions about Mary: Christian or otherwise.
Exactly! No one who has never heard the Roman catholic or orthodox teaching on this would come up with the perpetual virginity of Mary by reading the bible, and learning the original languages. By a plain reading of the bible they wouldn't even think twice about Jesus having half siblings, they would just naturally assume he did.
@@leeenk6932 concerning the perpetual virginity, you don't even need sola scriptura for the debate just standard Greek knowledge and scholarship. Josephus, who isnt a Christian, even speaks of a brother of Jesus, having no reason to mean anything else than the standard meaning. I believe not even Catholic scholars believe in the PV. They just deny it secretly.
I'm not so sure I would say it is an issue of Tradition vs Academia. It is Tradition vs Tradition and whether it explicitly undermines the Scriptures. Anglicans and Lutherans hold to Tradition, but we contend that the Scriptures are the umpire. Academia can include those like Bart Erhman and Robert Price. But I do see your point.
When you hear Hank Hanegraaff’s apologetics, you can tell they are arguments from a fairly new convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. Because they aren’t anything new to protestant apologetics, even though Hank thinks these are solid arguments that protestants never even thought of. Yet, I’m surprised that he is using them, since I’m sure he was fully aware of them when he was a protestant. Then again, maybe I’m giving him too much credit. Maybe he honestly never heard these arguments before.
Still remember the conversation that we had over that topic and many others, hope that you are doing good, my friend. God bless. Source: ua-cam.com/video/NyiGw4cI95E/v-deo.html
I asked Hank directly to debate these points with you Mr White - I pointed out your Greek was pretty good! After some other chat -I ended up being trolled by a bunch of orthodox or RC brainwashed and close minded parrots - 1 of whom I had to mute. I pointed out that when tradition becomes more important than the Bible - you’re in trouble - big trouble. In used to be RC and I’ve struggled to become an autonomous believer. I am actually very sad for Hank - he seems so very desperate to “belong” to this tradition. I bought one if his books and I’ve listened to many of his broadcasts but they’ve become increasingly & entirely different to his excellent broadcasts - and lessons of old. I ended up saying he shouldn’t be the Bible Answer Man now - it was time for someone else. Maybe he could start a “orthodox are us” channel? So sorry for him now. In my prayers.
As a former Roman Catholic I had doubts about the teachings of Rome about Mary at age 15. I was told that it was the word cousin that was used rather than brother in Matthew 13, they even went so far as to tell me that the word brother did not exist in the original language. However when I confronted my priest about Matthew 14 where we are told that Herod had John arrested because John had confronted Herod about marring Herodias the former wife of his brother Philip. As we are told that Herodias married Philip and that he was her own fathers brother. Herodias then divorced Philip to marry Herod, Philips brother which was the second time Herodias committed incest. These are all historical facts which cannot be denied. Hank Hanegraaff has committed heresy if he continues to deny the very words not only of the Scriptures' but historical facts. He is now a false prophet and has given tradition a superior place to the Scriptures. Proverbs 6:16-19, These Six things the Lord hates, Yes seven are an abomination to Him. The one that is mentioned twice? A lying tongue and A false witness who speaks lies! Hank Hanegraaff congratulations you are now an abomination to a Holy God.
It is possible that Jesus had step brothers or brothers from Mary. But James is inconsistent since he adopted the trinity from the tradition that he rejects.
@@thepalegalilean Maybe it’s you that needs to look up ad hominem? Ad hominem is not necessarily “character assassination”. It has to do with the fact that you’re attacking White himself and not his argument.
The argument of word "until" is stupidity.. Everyone knows what the word means if someone says for example "He never married UNTIL HIS DEAD" and "He never married UNTIL HIS 30's" "He never had car UNTIL HIS DEAD" And "he never had car UNTIL HIS 40'S" or "UNTIL HIS DAD BOUGHT HIM ONE" That argument just like the daylight an effort to turn around the bible.
Christianity in crisis was written by Mr. Hank and my former church that i used to belong here in the Philippines believed it but now looking back i think what was in crisis was his( hank) faith. sir please repent and be reconciled to our Savior
Thank you so much Dr. White for all you do to bring to our attention the ways some would teach other gospels and wrongly interpret the Word of God. I don't listen/watch Hank Hanegraaff so I don't know if he provided proof/substantiation from the Greek other than what he said, but I am grateful you do. Thank you for letting us know how some continue to go against the clear text of the Bible.
Yes...and we all need to be consistent. I wish James would be consistent in taking the term "world" to mean what it says ---> all men...when Christ said He died for all men. He's basically calling Jesus a liar by saying He only died on the cross for the elect.
Since the early 2000s very often hank would go to book of James whenever the question of justification or salvation by faith alone came up. That tells you all you need to know what he believed, or at least, believes now concerning his rejection of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Always suspected him.
Where did Hank attend church prior to his EO conversion? Was he ever submitted to the authority of elders within a solid church? That’s the question that should have been asked when news of his conversion broke a few years ago.
I was shocked. Can’t remember his previous church, but he was attending Orthodox since 2015ish. Maybe prior to that, he was too busy empire-building and was serious about being an apologist as an academic exercise, in much the way Ravi was (not to minimize Hanegraaff, who at least dug hard into Scripture). How else do you go from a Walter Martin-eque apologist, for decades, to Greek Orthodox? The heart had to have been missing from his “ministry”.
@@KristiLEvans1 Yup. I can remember Hank stating that his visit to China was very significant to him, and I’m guessing that’s when he became convicted that his heart was not in it and that needed something different, which likely prompted the search that ended in the EO. Build your “ministry” first then maybe look into grounding yourself spiritually- sounds about right for American evangellyfish Christians. I guess myself and everyone else who consumed Hank’s materials are partly to blame - we need to demand that these ministries be under the authority of a church before we give them one iota of support!!
@@PaDutchRunner there’s way much money to be had in ministry, I guess. I wish Dr. Martin hadn’t been charmed as by this guy, as we - the audience - had.
One of the strong arguments for the truthfulness of the gospel is that Jesus had brothers. The first thing that happens in cults is a dispute over who is the heir to run the religion (Mormonism as soon as Joseph smith died had massive disputes over who would be the prophet). Jesus’s own brothers did not go down that path.
Thanks James, I'm really enjoying your breakdown of these statements he's making. Agree - he’s not doing bible anymore. He’s out of his depth and doing something else - dictation maybe. I'm Orthodox by birth but lately have been questioning some key assumptions about tradition that we're not supposed to really question. We are taught they have been there since the Church began, even before . Your videos have been making sense to me, using solid scriptural references that I can look up for myself against the other scriptures that have been used against sola scriptura ( they seem far weaker and wider in interpretation by comparison) Jesus Himself said to search the scriptures - not tradition - the scriptures. I feel like some of the puzzle pieces are dropping for me, and it takes a solid teacher to help see them (ie so many in the faith that I wouldn't say that about, and to whom the Orthodox refer to when talking about Protestant theology). We're taught that oral tradition is as solid as the scriptures, and they are put side by side. I couldn't wrap my head around that ever, but just blindly accepted it. From what I've seen online, Hank's teachings aren't really taken seriously by many cradle Orthodox, who still see him as Protestant. Yet he's not that either. So who is he teaching in fact? Maybe converts like himself who don't feel like they fit into Orthodoxy either. That's another category within Orthodoxy - the covertodox and the cradles, as seen on many forums today. Thanks again, hope to see more.
Interesting comment! Thanks for posting. I can see how the orthodox would see western concerts as outsiders. To my read - also as an outsider - the orthodox THINK differently than westerners, about these issues.
Yeah this is a clip from a longer show, so some context might be missing. The new testament speaks of Jesus siblings, his brothers and sisters. And the words used in the original Greek are those you would use when referring to your biological siblings. Some Christians believe that Mary remained a virgin until her death, although this is never mentioned in the bible, this is the belief of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. These texts creates a problem for this belief. One explanation could be that the writer actually meant Jesus relatives or cousins, This is what Hank Hanegraaff argues for. Protestants believe in the in the Virgin birth of Jesus, but Protestants are also free to believe that Mary and Joseph had other Children together who were conceived normally after Jesus had been born. This would explain why the new testament talks about Jesus brothers and sisters. If the author meant to speak about Jesus relatives and cousins, there are other Greek words he could have used. James white thinks one should go with the natural reading of the text and accept that Mary had other children after Jesus was born. Hope that helps. :)
Was Mary a perpetual virgin as the Roman Catholic Church claims, if so how did she have additional children who were half siblings of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament?
@@marlak1104 As a protestant myself I would simply say that the Roman Catholic position is wrong, since it is in conflict with the text of scripture. So from my point of view, the Roman church should let scripture correct(or reform) their belief. The problem a Roman Catholic faces is that the perpetual virginity of Mary is declared dogma in the Roman church, and it is therefore infallible and binding on all it's members. It cannot change it's position on this question and all it's members have to believe it. So a member of the Roman church has to come up with another interpretation of what these texts means, hence the alternative that maybe the author just meant Jesus "relative's" in a more loose sense. Is the Roman church's interpretation possible? I guess it's theoretically possible, but I find it unconvincing. The way I see it, the Roman church dogmatized a tradition that has no scriptural basis, and they are now stuck with it.
In the full length broadcast, after Hannegraff waxes eloquent about the dogma of the immaculate conception being totally foreign to the Eastern tradition, he goes on to comment that it nevertheless points us to the "nature of the mother of God was wondrously purified by the Holy Spirt thus throwing open the way with union with God" - to which you replied - "What is this supposed to mean?" I think it reflects Orthodoxy's insistence that God's plan for humanity (indeed for all of creation) is the belief that humans may participate in the divine "energies" (whatever that may mean) of God without loss of their personal particularity and goes back to their understanding of the meaning of the Incarnation itself. The Orthodox place a lot of emphasis on our participation in the divine "energies" and achieving theosis ("deification") or conformity to an intimate union with God. At least that is my understanding when I investigated orthodoxy for myself.
So Hank, Elizabeth could have been Mary's sister, not necessarily cousin. I don't like jumbling these meanings. To the Jews, family relations was even more important than to us.
It was an egregious error for me to teach the plain meaning of the text as the Bible Answer Man, when I should have been teaching you the dogma of my current sect which I just started believing 5 minutes ago.
Many people are under the impression that Hank Hanegraaff has run off the rails. The fact of the matter is he was always a poser. He had no background in apologetics and theology when he assumed control of the Christian Research Institute. Dr. Martin hired him to handle fundraising and business matters. Hanegraaff basically was always a fraud.
There used to be a video out there of Dr. Martin‘s family exposing the cons that Hank pulled after Martin‘s death. Like I mention up above, Hank was also credibly accused of plagiarizing some of the James Kennedy‘s materials while he worked for Coral Ridge ministries. Seems like he’s always been a grifter. Problem is, a lot of people are fooled because their so-called Christian faith is a mile wide in an inch deep, if it exists at all.
Most thought, including me, Dr. Robert Morey would take Martin's place. I remember Martin telling stories of he and Morey witnessing on street corners together in their younger years. And he was a guest many times on the Bible Answer Program with Martin.
Interesting how Calvinists can see Orthodox errors, Roman Catholic errors, and Dispensationalist errors, but they can't see their own Calvinist deterministic errors.
Um, yeah. Because the “Institutes..” is a Biblical exegetical thesis. Strictly scriptural exegesis. Ineffibilis Deus is emotionalism and hogwash from a man who appeared to have never actually read the cringey embarrassment that is the Protoevangelium of James. Lather, rinse repeat from the 6th C., onward, past Ineffibilis Deus, and up to Fratelli Tutti. Kinda laughable easy to see the errors merely by reading and comparing the works.
Calvinist errors? What could *possibly* be the error in making God the author of evil, and predestining most of his creation to hell? It's all very clearly written in the bible that didn't need to be canonized by councils of the early church fathers, of which definitely didn't include apostles of Christ or the disciples of the apostles. Nope, book came right out of the sky, it did; exactly 66 books, in fact. I mean Martin Luther may have wanted to take out James because, honestly, it was just confusing what with the notion that faith without works to show for it is dead faith. But who actually wants to hear what the literal brother of Christ had to say?
@@theservantsresource3565 It is not derived from scripture. It is a belief some people had in the early church I read a book from Clement of Alexandria he said "For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin" which fits the narrative of the the protoevangelium of James
@@grushenka995 Thanks. I think some Catholics would be happy to add many other ancient books to the scriptures, because there’s a certain mystique to ancient traditions, which they seem to enjoy. But adding all that weight to a simple gospel only serves to obscure God’s plan of salvation. Unregenerate men seem to love making a litany of rules and teachings for other men to be burdened with.
The belief in Gnostic-Christo writings from the 3rd Century crept in and were incorporated into parts of the earlier church. Now, in the 21st C. they have to force the beliefs to fit Scripture, even though we now know the sources, through scholarship. It would be better to admit wrong and repent, but they clearly can’t or won’t.
I have to admit that I used to listen to Hank before his conversion into apostasy and always suspected that he had a soft spot for Roman Catholicism but had no idea he would wind up in Eastern or Greek Orthodoxy. I shake my head every time I drive by the church he now belongs to in Charlotte. Has anyone else besides me whoever used to listen to him both when his ministry was in California and after he moved to Charlotte, ever wondered why he never really exposed Roman Catholicism whenever there were questions about it the way he would Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Islam? I used to think it might’ve been because he didn’t want to turn off a main source of funding, until I realized it was a lot deeper than that. What’s really sad is that Hank grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where a lot of the Dutch reformed emigrated to, and his father apparently was solidly Reformed. Beyond that, Hank worked for D. James Kennedy for a while at Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida. He has also been accused of plagiarizing some of Dr. Kennedy‘s materials, in case you’re not aware, before starting his own ministry and moving to California. It’s hard to believe he could’ve apostatized with his background to this extent. Frankly, it seems like his ministry has always been about enriching him as somebody filmed a tour of his huge home in Southern California right after he sold it and moved to NC, and it was quite impressive. Given his calm, avuncular demeanor, he seems an ideal tool to deceive those who are very shallow in their Biblical knowledge, assuming they really have been converted. In other words, he does what a lot of false teachers do: count on people‘s ignorance of Scripture and the ability to interpret or know who to turn to to help them to do so.
The only apostasy here is people like you calling anyone of ANY denomination "apostates". "The measure with which you judge it will be measured unto you".
@@Jordan-hz1wr when you call someone “apostate”, it’s because of what that person has demonstrated that they believe about the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and other essentials of the Christian faith. “Apostate” is not equivalent to a personal insult. Rather, it’s a serious accusation that requires a substantive answer.
@@Jordan-hz1wr and yeah. Our measure is Scripture. That’s precisely what we’ve been saying. If your measure is “the Church”, then Scripture is subordinate anyway. We judge from different worldviews and foundations.
The “sobering reality” is that a man (Hank) who has spent most his life memorizing and teaching scripture has realized that no amount of learning and education can equal the knowledge of the Spirit within the church. He joined the Orthodox Church because it finally made SENSE of scripture and because he finally was willing to submit his wisdom to the wisdom of God. Any person can stand with a microphone and analyze Ancient Greek words… but it takes humility to surrender your wisdom to the wisdom of the bride. So thankful for the Orthodox Church after many years of being within Protestantism🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼☦️
Seeing how wrong and corrupt Hank's thinking is on such a simple verse with clear and undeniable meaning, then you should question all the other nonsense eschatology he believes like Preterism. I won't trust anyone that cant get Matthew 12:47 right
I've recently talked to a young man at work who has started attending a catholic church. I tried to tell him about all this but he kept making excuses for these, man made doctrines and dogmas. Oh they don't worship Mary....ah look up the definition of worship. They say that Mary was sinless....Jesus was the unblemished lamb/sinless. They say that Mary has ascended into heaven.....Jesus ascended into heaven.. They ask Mary to intercede for them....Jesus Christ is your intercessor, mediator and redeemer. They believe Mary can redeem them. They call Mary theotokos, but God made Mary. He knit her together in the womb. Jesus Christ existed before his birth. Before Abraham was I am. Jesus chose a vessel/Mary through which he would come into the world. Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Jesus created this vessel for a purpose and blessed is Mary for obeying her Father. Blessed was David but David also sinned. Roman Catholicism has turned away from God and his word. Their dogma and man made traditions and doctrine are lies and tools of satan to lead you away from your Good shepherd. Notice how the powers and principalities of evil continually try to take glory, power and worship away from God. Their teachings deminish the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the work he did on the cross. They offer you someone else through whom you can worship and have redemption. Luk 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” Luk 11:28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" Jesus corrects without dishonoring. Mat 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Mat 12:48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Mat 12:49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Mat 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. Jesus Christ is our propitiation our unblemished lamb. Jesus Christ is our mediator our intercessor for their is only ONE mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life. No one comes unto the Father but through Him. Jesus Christ is the LION OF JUDAH. Our Good Shepherd, our KING OF KINGS, our Lord and our God. Jesus is from heaven, Mary is of the earth. Jesus is God, Mary is a created being. Jesus is alive and at the right hand of the Father. Mary is in paradise with Jesus. In the grave for she does not have the power to raise herself as Jesus did. And she will be raised up in the last day with the rest of us. Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
James-We all do this to scripture to support our dogmas- including Calvinism. I humbly admit that I make God in my own image. We just need to be open to the Spirt and to learning more.- not intrenched. Also we shouldn’t let these differences separate each other. We agree that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Have you read the institutes? It’s a direct discussion of Scripture and the exegesis therein. That’s as unrelated to what Hank is doing, as advanced calculus is, from Romper Room.
That Jesus is the only child of the Blessed Virgin Mary is underscored that he is referred to as the “the” Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3). On the other hand, Mary is called “the mother of Jesus” (Jn. 2:1, 3; Acts 1:14), and never the mother of anybody else. The definite article “the” (Greek “ho”) [ The Greek letter “o” with the iota subscript] is very significant because it signifies “the one and only.” For instance, "ho theos" refers to the oneness or unicity of God (that there is only one God); thus, "ho huious" means that Jesus is the “only Son” of God as well as of Mary. Jesus Christ is at once the Son of God and the Son of Mary. Only the Father and Mary can rightly address Jesus as “Son” (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:11; 9:7; Lk. 3:22; 9:35; 2 Pt. 1:17; cf. Lk. 2:48). Mark 6:3, ironically used by some to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity, actually proves it. In this verse, Jesus is specifically called “the Son” (ho huious) of Mary. The so-called “brothers” of Jesus are never called the children of Mary. Orthodox author Peter E. Gillquist notes: “For one thing, the Scriptures never call them the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. Whose children were James, Joseph, Judas and Simon (Mk. 6:3; Mt. 13:55-56)? The Catechism of the Catholic Church answers: Against this doctrine [on the perpetual virginity of Mary] the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem, mentions James (Gr. for Jacob) as - A brother of Jesus who was unbelieving during the life of Jesus but saw Jesus in one of the resurrection appearances (Mt. 13:55; Jn. 7:5; 1 Co. 15:7) and then became a believer. He became the leader of the Jerusalem Church and presided at its first council (Ac. 15:6, 13; 21:17-18; Gal. 1:19). He is most probably also the author of the book that bears this name and brother of Jude the author of another book (Jas. 1:1; Jude 1) [ G. Douglas Young, ed., Young’s Bible Dictionary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1984) 296]. On the other hand, Joseph (Joses) is also mentioned as a brother of Jesus; also called Joses” (Mt. 13:55; 27:56; Mk. 6:3; 15:40) [ Ibid.,318]. Both James and Joseph, the “brothers” of Jesus Christ mentioned in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are said to be children of a Mary different from Mary, the mother of Jesus. Young’s Bible Dictionary mentions this Mary as - The mother of James and Joseph, and perhaps the wife of Clopas. She was present both at the Crucifixion and the Resurrection (Mt. 27: 56; Mk. 15:40, 47; 16:1; Jn. 19:25).
Hank is another example of the perils of believing you are a special category of Biblical teacher, and becoming addicted to the praise of men for teaching the layman what the natural understanding of Scripture does not mean. As if it is some special, exclusive revelation, unprovable and unquestionable because of the support of a gargantuan religious organization. Pitiful and toxic.
No I disagree. Hank is another example of what happens when you attempt to look at Protestantism historically and find out it's as historical as the American Civil War being fought with nuclear weapons.
@@shooterdownunder Really???? You're only source is some dude who does not present any evidence for his clams??? The guy even blocked comments from being posted. Wow, you truly are an Intellectual if that's all you got against Jay Dyer.
Mr. Hanegraaff took over for Walter Martin, (the original bible answer man) upon his death, if Walter only knew what his successor believes now he would turn over in his grave. All we can do is pray for Mr. Hanagraaff and hope that he will return.
@@theservantsresource3565 Yes, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, Saint Paul says "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." He is explicitly saying that there are traditions passed down by word of mouth and not listed in the writings.
Scripture has authority but that authority comes from its status as the canonical writings of the Church. The Church existed before the New Testament did, and it is the Church that curated the canon and incorporated it into the life of the Church, which is Christ's body on earth. What protestants have done is borrow our book, thereby removing it from its place as a liturgic text of the Church, thereby robbing it of its power.
@@wolkenpower That’s hardly a refutation. That’s an assumption based on human tradition. Paul talked about false Apostles. The Apostles were the authority when alive. Paul stated in 2 Timothy 3 that all scripture is sufficient. This doesn’t mean scrioture plus the authority of men, but scripture alone. Popes, modern apostles and modern prophets are all examples of false christs, introducing teachings that do not align with the scriptures. But anyone here can clearly see the incoherence of depending on the twisting of scripture to argue for the non-authority if scripture. And before you say you’re not arguing for that; if scripture is not absolutely authoritative, just like Jesus and the Apostles and Evangelists believed it was, then it’s not authoritative at all, and we’re free to believe what we wish. Scripture itself informs scripture, and we are not free to force upon it meanings that it doesn’t support.
This is so sad! I had learned much from Hank over the years; read some of his books, listened to his answers on the Bible Answer Man program...he was one of the teachers who pointed out to me that "words are not univocal, but equivocal, so we have to understand the meaning by the context..."...--Until and unless you begin to make men's traditions equal with that which alone, is God-breathed... :-(
@@Chirhopher I just purchased the Proto-Evangelium of Jamez yesterday. That is what it means. I would like to read it for myself. And it just so happens to Mr. White discussed it. I thought that was a bit of coincidence.
Alex just wait until you get to the part where Mary‘s alleged midwife thrust her fingers up Mary’s you-know-what to determine if she is still a virgin while she is pregnant with Jesus. The specific Greek word for “thrust” would mean that the midwife would have broken Mary’s hymen, and therefore she would no longer be a virgin. So you can tell that it was a man who had no knowledge of female anatomy who wrote it.
@@BornAgainRN I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing because you are not the first person to tell me this information. I think about that and just uncomfortably cringe. 😬😬😬
They view the bible as part of a wider tradition and the lay people just accept the "interpretation " of the church leaders. They argue that it is the church that gave us the canon so the authority of scripture is made subservient to the authority of the church. They don't seem to have a good understanding of 2nd Timothy 3:15-16 or 2nd Peter 1:20-21 needless to say.
The scriptures refute this. If what they’re saying is true, why aren’t there more scriptures past John? We should expect new scriptures to be written right up to the present day. No Catholic will tell you that an encyclical bears equal weight to the new Testament. Even Catholics recognize the uniqueness of scripture. It’s unavoidable. The events occured at a particular time in history, after which proohecy and revelation ended.
@@theservantsresource3565 I totally agree. Scripture is God breathed so it came directly from Him although He used human vessels to write what He intended. Peter's assertion that "no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" makes it clear who is in charge of the process and guiding it. Both Catholics and Orthodox tend to place a lot of emphasis in the authority that was delegated to the apostles and to the church. Apostolic succession is a key belief for both groups. I think a lot of their followers tend to believe that they don't even need to refute our arguments since our churches are not legitimate to begin with since we don't have this "unbroken chain of succession" dating back to the apostles. For me this is the same argument the Jews used against Jesus in John 8 when they claimed succession from Abraham as a means to prove they were right. They always try to assert that Protestants are teaching something new that was never before believed in the history of the church and they try to use the church fathers to prove that their traditions are the historical faith and date back to the apostles. When you show them quotes proving that the early fathers believed in justification by faith alone, they either stop engaging with you or accuse you of quote mining. Also showing them quotes demonstrating how highly the early fathers treated scripture can be an eye opener for them. There is an Augustine quote which is a good one where he clearly says that he tests everything by scripture since only scripture is divinely inspired and free from error. Orthodox tend to believe in the eucharist as a sacrifice for sins as do Catholics so I always bring in Hebrews 10 to refute this. You can also find quotes from some early fathers showing that many believed that the bread and wine remained bread and wine and Jesus words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were spiritual and symbolic. All in all they don't really believe in salvation by grace through faith in my opinion. It is salvation by careful observation of the liturgy and the sacraments and doing good works. Humans are custodians in charge of the salvation process in their view and baptism regenerates rather than the Holy Spirit giving life to those He wills.
@@philblagden Religious men who are not themselves regenerate love to obscure the gospel message through laying on heavy burdens of sophisticated rules and teachings on lay people. That’s the bottom line. The NAR is the same way. No wonder some of them want to unite
It's so obvious that Hank is wrong that you just scratch your head and wonder how can that be. But the answer is simple. God-created it that way from the beginning to make his truth known. If he doesn't create liars then there would be no truth tellers. It's how it was from the beginning. God creates Adam he he falls away. He create Israel and they fall away. Then last the gentiles, and they fall away. Then the last trumpet blows and everyone realises the difference between good and evil clearly that God had shown all along
What about the fact that the firstborn was unique per father and Jesus is the literal firstborn of his family? For example, in Jacob's family, even though he had 4 wives, only ONE child was the first born. The same thing happens with Jesus. According to Luke 2:7 and Luke 2:21-24, Jesus was the first born of his family and there is no way to say otherwise. Conclusion: Mariology is false.
The only grounds to take the plain meaning of the words to be something other, is the need to substantiate later accretion that _must be read into the text in order to justify the belief_ .
I think this has more to do with pride than lexical errors. Even before he completely left the reservation, you could plainly see this was a man consumed by pride and arrogance
Not sure how people who interpret scripture differently for a few hundred years think they can rebuttal the faith being taught for 2000 years. You do not have the upper hand being a Protestant, you literally have 45,000 different interpretations based on individual understandings that came into being through pride only within the last few hundred years.
So, is James' argument that the semantic domain must be collapsed because nobody actually knows what was specifically meant? It seems to me that he's defaulting to normative interpretations because he refuses to acknowledge verbal traditions. I don't really hold to a specific position on this, but James' argumentation is pretty silly. A strong hermeneutic typically considers extra-Biblical sources when evaluating context.
If the extra-biblical sources were 1st century accounts referred to or otherwise supported by the New Testament authors, or if they had the same reputation for accuracy, soundness of doctrine and were written by those who were closest to Jesus or their disciples, hundreds of millions of Christians would not regard them as mere human traditions and not on the same level of spiritual authority as Scripture. The New Testament itself is the earliest Christian tradition. The New Testament authors were the earliest church fathers. Since Christians agree that the New Testament was divinely inspired, all later tradition should be judged by how well it conforms to the Scriptures, not vice versa.
Why does James White deny the concept of Mary's perpetual virginity on the basis of the text's natural reading, yet when Calvinism is denied and rebuked on the basis of the text's natural reading, James White will go crazy and rebuke his opponent? When James is accused of believing gnostic heresies, he outright denies it, but he actually believes gnostic ideologies. How hypocritical is he?
While I don't think Hank should be expounding on Orthodoxy because he's clearly not understanding, I'm equally amazed at how little James knows about second temple judaism. His understanding of Mary, her virginity and the relationship of Jesus to his siblings is appalling. Mary was a Jewish virgin in the second temple period. The term Virgin is explicitly confined to girls and women who are operating in the Temple (ie like nuns). When they reach maturity they are removed from the Temple and either returned home or placed under the guardianship of someone. In Mary's case, she was betrothed to an older widower (Joseph) until such time as she is able to return to the Temple (Menopause). This is why she is betrothed yet does not "know" a man. Joseph already had children (the siblings of Jesus). Mary bore no other children.
Any biblical sources for any of this? Biblically, the word virgin referred to any young woman past puberty and of marriageable age who was not yet married, and was assumed and expected to be a virgin.
People should take the easiest explanation, not taking a route around it.. There's no explaination that ever mention they were Jesus's cousins, but for Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban, there are explaining who they were to each other. The explanation of course naturally given to explain it further that they are not brothers, but uncle and nephew because the word naturally comes into the meaning of brothers, so it was needed explanation that they're "brother" In the meaning of uncle and nephew. But in case of Jesus, there were never mentioned more than brother. So naturally it refers to the first and main meaning, which is real brothers and sisters. That's naturally how people communicate in real life. If you using a word that have double meaning, you would explain it further if what you mean is beyond that. But if not, there is no need for you to explain it further.
Mary's body was not her own,it is for her husband to use as it was made for,in the bonds of marriage .Would God deny Joseph sex with his wife? Absolutely not! They had a bu ch of kids,they were fruitful and multipled!!
No. There Shouldn't be same on him. It's not his fault that the protestant movement is about as historical as nuclear power being used in the Roman Empire.
@@thepalegalilean Older does not guarantee preserved doctrine. The pharasees are more historical does that make them and their added traditions the truth. Paul was the founder and appointed the bishops in the church of Corinth and not soon after false doctrines arose which Paul had to correct. He told them to use his letters, our scripture, to fight against this false doctrine.
Bible Answer Man has became the Bible but man. I know the Bible says this BUT... Becoming an expert at molding Scripture to pigeon hole it into his theological presupposition. Mark and avoid!
This is really 'low hanging fruit' to JW, an easy win. The R. C. church and the E. O. church have repeated this outlandish 'argument' so many times, so to some it has become sounding valid. In fact, it's not an argument at all. It's just a claim, a claim to prefer a remote secondary meaning without giving a single argument for it. They only prefer this translation, because of their doctrine, so it can never be proof. It's just a circular reasoning.
Let me just say that the Orthodox and Papists both have a lot of disturbing and wrongheaded doctrines. But this just doesn't strike me as worth spending any time in refuting. I don't think Mary was a perpetual virgin, but I also don't think it matters in any way if she was. If we are going to focus on the errors of Mary, what matters is the gross idolatry committed in praying to her and her elevation in being considered sinless. One additional reason I say this is I think Luther and Calvin both believed in perpetual virginity- so it's not a big deal to me.
"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" - Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527. "She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin-something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. - Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.
@@zena7006 Luther got this one wrong. Genesis 3:15 states that it is the offspring of the woman, not the woman herself, who crushes the serpent’s head. Luther made a mighty contribution to the faith on the main issues he focused on such as sola scriptura and justification by faith. But I am almost relieved to know that he wasn’t correct on everything. It gives me assurance to continue to place my trust in God and His word above man and his traditions.
The Calvinist lost the debates vs Catholic & Eastern Orthodox. No Prostastant has the Church Father's on there side, they Cherry 🍒 pick! God bless 🗝️🗝️🙏 why do you think a lot of Prostastants become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox because they the Bible & Church Father's 🛐
I think it’s hilarious. This guy thinks he’s rebuking Hank Graaff, but in reality, he’s also rebuking all 12 apostles, and every single priest, bishop and church leader that has been in the original faith since it’s very inception for 2000 years sorry not buying it.
@@investfluent4143 It's literally all over Paul's teachings. The old covenant has been done away with and replaced with the new. The particular people that had been the Jews have been done away with. To be God's chosen people requires belief, Not blood relation. If replacement theology isn't biblical than you ought to be a Jew. It also means that Jesus' crucifixion means absolutely nothing. Which also means you are currently dead in your sins.
@@thepalegalilean It is all over Paul's teachings? Paul the guy who introduces himself in every letter as the Apostle to the gentiles? So as to not be confused with people like Peter who wrote only to the twelve tribes scattered abroad? I have to disagree. The Bride of Christ, despite what catholicism taught, is Israel. The church is the Body of Christ, Christ being the Head. The two are not merged until the Wedding of the Lamb. You have to throw away a lot of meaning to end up with replacement theology.
I heard a Catholic apologist use Romans 12:1 to communicate the “unbloody sacrifice“ that they participate in ritually at the mass. So for them it is really easy to find scriptures that support their agenda. You just have to find the word sacrifice anywhere in the Bible and show that we can continue it… bam! And it’s so preposterous and ridiculous, that it’s hard to refute
They do the same with the church fathers if they say the Eucharist is a sacrifice and say case closed but don't point out the fathers who refer to prayer, fasting and giving to the poor as a sacrifice.
Why don't you debate Hank face to face ? That's sort of gutless just to run a video. Why not be a man, and debate in a fair setup? At least you allow comments on your channel unlike your cowardly buddy with his "Wretched" channel. In fact you and that guy could take on Hank and professor Nathan Jacobsen in a live debate over many issues. It could be over many weeks, and posted on UA-cam. Let everyone decide for themselves after hearing both sides of the issues. Of course that would never happen because they would wipe the floor with you and Mr. Wretched. I am not even Eastern Orthodox myself, but you can't hold a candle to Hank, and against Prof Jacobsen, it would be laughable.
@@KristiLEvans1 Yeah I think you said scholar said it was fraudulent because there are copies. The scholar say the same thing about The Bible. Some scholars say it's real. I don't know. I read the interview and it looks pretty good to me. If it is real then is very interesting.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths. Time for CRI to give this guy his walking papers. Dr. Martin is rolling in his grave.
I first heard Hank on the Bible Answer Man in the nineties and was surprised that he affirmed modern day 'tongues.' It seems that Mr. H. H. has drifted pretty far since those days. Johnny Mac ripped Hank hard when he jumped ship and swam to the E.O. inflatable craft. A pitiful mess.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Getting married and having children is not a sin. In fact it is a vocation, especially when one is raising the Savior of the world. Why would it contradict Marys nature?
It only contradicts Catholics teaching . Catholic love to contradict the Bible
@@dallasbrat81and they are very good at it
Not only does the New Testament teach that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that Mary was their mother, the Old Testament teaches it too. In Psalm 69 there is a prophecy concerning Christ that was fulfilled in the New Testament. " Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me."- Psalm 69:7-9.
Wow! Excellent point on Psalm 69. I’ve read that many times and was too stupid to see it. Lord, save me.
Yeah it's interesting in psalm 69:5 it says...
"O God, You know my foolishness;
And my sins are not hidden from You."
And as a result the catholic apologists say "Well not everything written in psalm 69 applies to Jesus, because Jesus wasn't a sinner, so then verse 8 cannot apply to Jesus about having siblings."
Which I agree Jesus did not sin, but was perfectly sinless, and the spotless Lamb of God. However in the Catholic Douey Rhiems bible in psalm 68:6 which reads like this...
"O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my offences are not hidden from thee."
The study notes for psalm 68:6 say this...
"Verse 6 My foolishness and My offenses: which my enemies IMPUTE to Me: or the follies and sins of men, which I HAVE TAKEN UPON MYSELF."
The psalms are numbered differently in the catholic douey rehiems bible. Psalm 68 in the Douey Rhiems is the same as psalm 69 in all other bibles.
But they in the study notes apply this to Jesus in the sense that He Himself did not sin, but was accused of sin by His enemies, and bore our sins. And that is how psalm 69:5 applies to Jesus. Not that Jesus had sinned but our sins were imputed to Him. The inconsistencies are ridiculous!
So on one hand you have the apologists arguing that verse 5 does not apply to Jesus, because it would make it sound like Jesus was a sinner. But on the other hand you have catholic academics applying verse 5 to Jesus, saying that Jesus was wrongfully accused of sin, and bore our sins. And that is how verse 5 can apply to Jesus.
Interestingly though the douey is silent on verse 9 in psalm 68, which is psalm 69:8 in other bibles about Being a stranger to my mothers children. No notes on that verse at all.
Thank you for bringing that up. The New Testament references Psalm 69 multiple times as prophecy of Christ...
Psalm 69:4 (John 15:25)
Psalm 69:9 (John 2:17/Romans 15:3)
Psalm 69:21 (Matthew 27:34/John 19:29)
Psalm 69:22-23 (Romans 11:9-10)
Psalm 69:25 (Acts 1:20)
James Trotter, A friend of mine and I had an in-depth discussion on why the perpetual virginity of Mary is not scriptural, including discussing Psalm 69, and demonstrating that it was more than that single verse that prophesies about Jesus, but the entire Psalm is about Jesus. My friend demonstrates reverse footnotes showing different verses in Psalms 69 and where they are fulfilled in the New Testament. So when it says that His mother had children who were estranged from him, this is indeed a prophecy about Mary having children after the birth of Jesus. Catholics and eastern orthodox will insist that this is talking about King David’s mother and “her” children, not Jesus mother’s and her children. But it ignores the fact that the ENTIRE Psalm is a prophecy about Jesus. It begins around the two hour mark if you want to advance to it. ua-cam.com/video/TexNvNU-ldM/v-deo.html
James, I served as the radio engineer for the late Dr Walter Martin all the way back in 1974 after he came to California from New York. After he passed into glory in 1989, I met Hank at a video editing facility where I was doing voice over work. Hank asked me to rejoin CRI as the director of media (radio, video & film), which I did. I only stayed for two years due to profound issues I saw working every day with Hank. I was interviewed last year on Cultish with Jeff Durbin about my years of working with Dr Martin. I'm only writing you to say Thank You for exposing the Rank Heresy Hank has fallen into. But it was of no surprise to see him convert to the Orthodox tradition based on what I saw in his character. As a former acquaintance and student of Greg Bahnsen and Roushas Rushdoony all the way back in the early 70's I didn't really fit in very well at CRI... hahaha! But I was pleasantly surprised to see him embrace partial preterism!! Very sad to see his true colors exposed as I saw back in 1989. At any rate, if you read this long comment, God richly bless your efforts and Keep up the good work!
That’s too funny!
Thank you for posting. I’d heard very troubling things about his character, from others close to Dr. Martin. It’s unfortunate that CRI has devolved into this. However, YHWH works in His ways, in His time, and now, Hanegraaff is exposed and his empire is a shell of its former self. I’m so grateful that someone shot a photo of his chrismation. Based upon what Hanegraaff said in his interviews after the fallout, it seems he only came clean about his conversion because of that exposure. We’d only have noticed, over time, that his answers to certain questions were odd or evasive and erroneous. He’d likely have tried continuing to milk CRI for his very high lifestyle. Dr. Martin built CRI for God’s glory. It’s okay that it’s faded. Nothing of this world, endures.
It’s tantamount to a lie for him to have continued being the “Bible Answer Man”, when he clearly thinks that Scripture only has limited authority, and only through the hands of the “church”. Outrageous.
@@KristiLEvans1 hanegraaff was one of the first apologist I started listening to over 15 years ago.
When he converted to Eastern Orthodox it was one-hundred-percent illogical and irrational.
I remember him saying numerous times that he still stands 100% behind everything he taught and everything he wrote. Yet what he taught and wrote would be considered heretical by the Eastern Orthodox church and yet he converts to Eastern Orthodox.
It made absolutely zero sense, the man is a walking contradiction.
I regret that I gave two of his books away.
The two books that I gave away were perfectly sound, but I regret the fact that someone may find those books and think that he is a sound teacher.
He is not a sound teacher, and I should have just thrown his books away, but I actually gave two of his books away before he converted to Eastern orthodoxy.
Sometimes someone's theology can be straight as an arrow, just the person is still devoid of the spirit and not born again.
Ravi Zacharias in my opinion is a perfect example. Just someone who learned the arguments, and learned how to parrot them.
But never had a saving faith. At least that's my opinion of Ravi Zacharias. And I fear the same for Hank.
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 beautifully and poignantly said. I listened to Hanegraaff 18-25 years ago, while I was on the road, so I feel your pain and regret. He was my first exposure to serious apologetics. Unlike Ravi, Hank KNEW and preached a clear, concise, true Gospel. How Hanegraaff could be such a deceiver… I’ll never know. It still doesn’t make sense, after all these years. As for Ravi, only the Lord knows the disposition of his soul. I suppose we should pray and hope.
Dr. White you are a gift to the body of Christ and the reformed faith. Praying for you brother.
The man who for decades exposed false teachers with great clarity has now become what he once exposed.
His book "Counterfeit Revival" helped me leave Charismatic teaching.
Lord please protect us and keep us from sin...
That's because he simply red history, And came to the Exact same conclusion That I did.
Protestantism is not historical and teaches doctrines that are alien and foreign to Christianity.
@@thepalegalilean You mean he "read" history, and he left Christianity when he left the Word and went to false religion.
@@jesuguru2394
Catholic and Eastern Christianity are by far the most historical Christians out there.
You're doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura have absolutely no historicity whatsoever. It's not taught in the scriptures, There is absolutely no Church father that taught it. And it wasn't even being taught in the mediaeval ages well until the 16th century.
Protestantism has indoctrinated you to such a degree that you literally believe that rejecting invented beliefs from the 16th century and opting instead for the original teachings of the 1st christians is tantamount to apostasy.
You make a better case for having never been in Christianity then me and Hank do for having left it.
You are a LIAR
Im finishing up Svendsen's Critique of current catholic apologists so this is very timely for me.
It has a great title “Upon This Slippery Rock.”. I’ll put it on my reading list.
"Evangelical Answers" by Svendsen is PHENOMENAL. So is "Who is My Mother?"
@@AurelioCortez the funny thing is that Hank had Svendsen on the BAM to promote "Who Is My Mother". And Hanks Bible Answer Book has a chapter on the syblings of Jesus where he recommends Svendsen's book. Why not refute Svendsen instead of just repeating old arguments that Svendsen critiques.
The Pharisees also placed traditions above scripture.
That's an understatement. 🤨
@Ελληνας Γραικος
Is in the video
@Ελληνας Γραικος
I read it on Greek too. Watch the video.
@Ελληνας Γραικος
It's in the video. Just watch it.
@Ελληνας Γραικος
Yes it does.
Thank you for doing this critique. It was helpful.
If Mary was a Perpetual virgin that would be mentioned in the Bible that would be very important
It is. If you read the New Testament with a Jewish context in mind, I think you will see the evidence overwhelmingly supports Mary having had been a Virgin throughout her life.
@@thepalegalilean Jesus had brothers and sisters if Mary was a Perpetual virgin and divine as the Catholics picture her then it would be in the Bible that would be very important but it is not there.
@@FormerTrucker
Why would it be there? The whole message behind the New Testament is that there is now a new covenant. God's people is no longer a specific ethnic group, But all of the world's people based upon the blood that Jesus Christ shed on the cross. And the makuleke ception, While it is present in scripture, is not the focus of the New Testament.
Furthermore this was being believed in the 2nd century, So there's every probability That this was being believed in the 1st.
@@thepalegalilean well that's a debate about the church fathers from the second century on up. But the immaculate conception belief as well as the Perpetual virgin the so-called custodian of death. If these things were true when Jesus taught us to pray he would not have said Our Father Who Art in Heaven he would have said Hail Mary full of grace. None of the prayers of the Apostles none of the teachings of the Apostles teaches that Mary is anything but a woman blessed AMONG women not above them.
@@FormerTrucker
You make no sense. What are you trying to say?
He sounds like the American pows being forced by the north Vietnamese to admit their guilt on tv during Vietnam that I watched in the 60s.
Catholics and Orthodox have to admit this isnt a debate of tradition vs Protestantism. Its a debate of tradition vs academia. No scholar who isnt guided by tradition has arrived at their conclusions about Mary: Christian or otherwise.
Exactly! No one who has never heard the Roman catholic or orthodox teaching on this would come up with the perpetual virginity of Mary by reading the bible, and learning the original languages. By a plain reading of the bible they wouldn't even think twice about Jesus having half siblings, they would just naturally assume he did.
@@leeenk6932 concerning the perpetual virginity, you don't even need sola scriptura for the debate just standard Greek knowledge and scholarship. Josephus, who isnt a Christian, even speaks of a brother of Jesus, having no reason to mean anything else than the standard meaning. I believe not even Catholic scholars believe in the PV. They just deny it secretly.
@@aperson4057 yeah i have heard of Josephus actually. It's interesting
I'm not so sure I would say it is an issue of Tradition vs Academia. It is Tradition vs Tradition and whether it explicitly undermines the Scriptures. Anglicans and Lutherans hold to Tradition, but we contend that the Scriptures are the umpire. Academia can include those like Bart Erhman and Robert Price.
But I do see your point.
I mean, academics would also say Jesus isn't God.
Best thing James said is that Catholics don't try to use the Bible but try to get around the Bible. It is true, they think of the Bible as secondary
When you hear Hank Hanegraaff’s apologetics, you can tell they are arguments from a fairly new convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. Because they aren’t anything new to protestant apologetics, even though Hank thinks these are solid arguments that protestants never even thought of. Yet, I’m surprised that he is using them, since I’m sure he was fully aware of them when he was a protestant. Then again, maybe I’m giving him too much credit. Maybe he honestly never heard these arguments before.
Still remember the conversation that we had over that topic and many others, hope that you are doing good, my friend. God bless.
Source: ua-cam.com/video/NyiGw4cI95E/v-deo.html
Did he start moving his hands differently when he converted? He looks like he’s trying to mimic EO icons.
I asked Hank directly to debate these points with you Mr White - I pointed out your Greek was pretty good!
After some other chat -I ended up being trolled by a bunch of orthodox or RC brainwashed and close minded parrots - 1 of whom I had to mute.
I pointed out that when tradition becomes more important than the Bible - you’re in trouble - big trouble. In used to be RC and I’ve struggled to become an autonomous believer.
I am actually very sad for Hank - he seems so very desperate to “belong” to this tradition.
I bought one if his books and I’ve listened to many of his broadcasts but they’ve become increasingly & entirely different to his excellent broadcasts - and lessons of old.
I ended up saying he shouldn’t be the Bible Answer Man now - it was time for someone else. Maybe he could start a “orthodox are us” channel?
So sorry for him now. In my prayers.
When will James White debate James Dyer??? Is James White too scared to debate an Orthodox Christian???
@@alt-monarchist who?
@@brendanfox8945 Jay Dyer is ready to debate James White.
@@alt-monarchist how do you know? And ... who?
@@brendanfox8945 Look up Jay Dyer on UA-cam. Not that hard. James White is probably to scared to debate him.
As a former Roman Catholic I had doubts about the teachings of Rome about Mary at age 15. I was told that it was the word cousin that was used rather than brother in Matthew 13, they even went so far as to tell me that the word brother did not exist in the original language. However when I confronted my priest about Matthew 14 where we are told that Herod had John arrested because John had confronted Herod about marring Herodias the former wife of his brother Philip. As we are told that Herodias married Philip and that he was her own fathers brother. Herodias then divorced Philip to marry Herod, Philips brother which was the second time Herodias committed incest. These are all historical facts which cannot be denied. Hank Hanegraaff has committed heresy if he continues to deny the very words not only of the Scriptures' but historical facts. He is now a false prophet and has given tradition a superior place to the Scriptures. Proverbs 6:16-19, These Six things the Lord hates, Yes seven are an abomination to Him. The one that is mentioned twice? A lying tongue and A false witness who speaks lies! Hank
Hanegraaff congratulations you are now an abomination to a Holy God.
I used to live in Philadelphia; the city of cousinly love. Oh, wait....!
It is possible that Jesus had step brothers or brothers from Mary. But James is inconsistent since he adopted the trinity from the tradition that he rejects.
Thank you so much for speaking to some of the errant traditions of the Eastern Orthodox.
James understands Eastern orthodoxy in the same way he understands Catholicism. Which means he doesn't understand it at all.
@@thepalegalilean
Nice ad hominem!
@@elel2608
Actually look up the definition of ad hominum please. Because what I said is not character assassination.
It's called the truth.
@@thepalegalilean The only person or channel that deserves to be called the "Bible Answer Man" is John Kostik.
@@thepalegalilean
Maybe it’s you that needs to look up ad hominem? Ad hominem is not necessarily “character assassination”. It has to do with the fact that you’re attacking White himself and not his argument.
The argument of word "until" is stupidity.. Everyone knows what the word means if someone says for example "He never married UNTIL HIS DEAD" and "He never married UNTIL HIS 30's"
"He never had car UNTIL HIS DEAD" And "he never had car UNTIL HIS 40'S" or "UNTIL HIS DAD BOUGHT HIM ONE"
That argument just like the daylight an effort to turn around the bible.
Christianity in crisis was written by Mr. Hank and my former church that i used to belong here in the Philippines believed it but now looking back i think what was in crisis was his( hank) faith. sir please repent and be reconciled to our Savior
Thank you so much Dr. White for all you do to bring to our attention the ways some would teach other gospels and wrongly interpret the Word of God. I don't listen/watch Hank Hanegraaff so I don't know if he provided proof/substantiation from the Greek other than what he said, but I am grateful you do. Thank you for letting us know how some continue to go against the clear text of the Bible.
Yes...and we all need to be consistent. I wish James would be consistent in taking the term "world" to mean what it says ---> all men...when Christ said He died for all men. He's basically calling Jesus a liar by saying He only died on the cross for the elect.
Since the early 2000s very often hank would go to book of James whenever the question of justification or salvation by faith alone came up. That tells you all you need to know what he believed, or at least, believes now concerning his rejection of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Always suspected him.
Where did Hank attend church prior to his EO conversion? Was he ever submitted to the authority of elders within a solid church? That’s the question that should have been asked when news of his conversion broke a few years ago.
I was shocked. Can’t remember his previous church, but he was attending Orthodox since 2015ish. Maybe prior to that, he was too busy empire-building and was serious about being an apologist as an academic exercise, in much the way Ravi was (not to minimize Hanegraaff, who at least dug hard into Scripture). How else do you go from a Walter Martin-eque apologist, for decades, to Greek Orthodox? The heart had to have been missing from his “ministry”.
Used to listen to him every day. For years.
@@KristiLEvans1 Yup. I can remember Hank stating that his visit to China was very significant to him, and I’m guessing that’s when he became convicted that his heart was not in it and that needed something different, which likely prompted the search that ended in the EO. Build your “ministry” first then maybe look into grounding yourself spiritually- sounds about right for American evangellyfish Christians. I guess myself and everyone else who consumed Hank’s materials are partly to blame - we need to demand that these ministries be under the authority of a church before we give them one iota of support!!
@@PaDutchRunner sadly, too true. Amen, brother.
@@PaDutchRunner there’s way much money to be had in ministry, I guess. I wish Dr. Martin hadn’t been charmed as by this guy, as we - the audience - had.
One of the strong arguments for the truthfulness of the gospel is that Jesus had brothers. The first thing that happens in cults is a dispute over who is the heir to run the religion (Mormonism as soon as Joseph smith died had massive disputes over who would be the prophet). Jesus’s own brothers did not go down that path.
Excellent. I have dealt with a convert to EO from Protestantism and he does exactly that- I don’t need sola scriptura, I have the church.
I don't think we should refer to him as the bible answer man???
The non-Bible non-answer man. Or the EOM.
Thanks James, I'm really enjoying your breakdown of these statements he's making. Agree - he’s not doing bible anymore. He’s out of his depth and doing something else - dictation maybe. I'm Orthodox by birth but lately have been questioning some key assumptions about tradition that we're not supposed to really question. We are taught they have been there since the Church began, even before . Your videos have been making sense to me, using solid scriptural references that I can look up for myself against the other scriptures that have been used against sola scriptura ( they seem far weaker and wider in interpretation by comparison) Jesus Himself said to search the scriptures - not tradition - the scriptures. I feel like some of the puzzle pieces are dropping for me, and it takes a solid teacher to help see them (ie so many in the faith that I wouldn't say that about, and to whom the Orthodox refer to when talking about Protestant theology). We're taught that oral tradition is as solid as the scriptures, and they are put side by side. I couldn't wrap my head around that ever, but just blindly accepted it. From what I've seen online, Hank's teachings aren't really taken seriously by many cradle Orthodox, who still see him as Protestant. Yet he's not that either. So who is he teaching in fact? Maybe converts like himself who don't feel like they fit into Orthodoxy either. That's another category within Orthodoxy - the covertodox and the cradles, as seen on many forums today. Thanks again, hope to see more.
Interesting comment! Thanks for posting. I can see how the orthodox would see western concerts as outsiders. To my read - also as an outsider - the orthodox THINK differently than westerners, about these issues.
Someone explain what this video is about in the start I'm so lost T_T
Yeah this is a clip from a longer show, so some context might be missing. The new testament speaks of Jesus siblings, his brothers and sisters. And the words used in the original Greek are those you would use when referring to your biological siblings.
Some Christians believe that Mary remained a virgin until her death, although this is never mentioned in the bible, this is the belief of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. These texts creates a problem for this belief. One explanation could be that the writer actually meant Jesus relatives or cousins, This is what Hank Hanegraaff argues for.
Protestants believe in the in the Virgin birth of Jesus, but Protestants are also free to believe that Mary and Joseph had other Children together who were conceived normally after Jesus had been born. This would explain why the new testament talks about Jesus brothers and sisters. If the author meant to speak about Jesus relatives and cousins, there are other Greek words he could have used. James white thinks one should go with the natural reading of the text and accept that Mary had other children after Jesus was born.
Hope that helps. :)
@@killingtime9283 wow thank you so much. Makes so much sense
Was Mary a perpetual virgin as the Roman Catholic Church claims, if so how did she have additional children who were half siblings of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament?
@@marlak1104 As a protestant myself I would simply say that the Roman Catholic position is wrong, since it is in conflict with the text of scripture. So from my point of view, the Roman church should let scripture correct(or reform) their belief.
The problem a Roman Catholic faces is that the perpetual virginity of Mary is declared dogma in the Roman church, and it is therefore infallible and binding on all it's members. It cannot change it's position on this question and all it's members have to believe it. So a member of the Roman church has to come up with another interpretation of what these texts means, hence the alternative that maybe the author just meant Jesus "relative's" in a more loose sense.
Is the Roman church's interpretation possible? I guess it's theoretically possible, but I find it unconvincing. The way I see it, the Roman church dogmatized a tradition that has no scriptural basis, and they are now stuck with it.
Man...Hanegraaf has really gone off the rails.
Your James White boy has been off the rails for a long time wandering the alley straight to the pitt...what a bunch of arrogant fake servitude
If you look up Christian answers on UA-cam you will find that there was a lot of early signs that were ignored.
In the full length broadcast, after Hannegraff waxes eloquent about the dogma of the immaculate conception being totally foreign to the Eastern tradition, he goes on to comment that it nevertheless points us to the "nature of the mother of God was wondrously purified by the Holy Spirt thus throwing open the way with union with God" - to which you replied - "What is this supposed to mean?" I think it reflects Orthodoxy's insistence that God's plan for humanity (indeed for all of creation) is the belief that humans may participate in the divine "energies" (whatever that may mean) of God without loss of their personal particularity and goes back to their understanding of the meaning of the Incarnation itself. The Orthodox place a lot of emphasis on our participation in the divine "energies" and achieving theosis ("deification") or conformity to an intimate union with God. At least that is my understanding when I investigated orthodoxy for myself.
How does Hank accept the Paraklesis? He really needs to be pressed on that.
So Hank, Elizabeth could have been Mary's sister, not necessarily cousin. I don't like jumbling these meanings. To the Jews, family relations was even more important than to us.
This was very educational AND entertaining! Sad to think of Hank reaching outside the Bible for his answers and his authority.
It was an egregious error for me to teach the plain meaning of the text as the Bible Answer Man, when I should have been teaching you the dogma of my current sect which I just started believing 5 minutes ago.
Haha
Many people are under the impression that Hank Hanegraaff has run off the rails. The fact of the matter is he was always a poser. He had no background in apologetics and theology when he assumed control of the Christian Research Institute. Dr. Martin hired him to handle fundraising and business matters. Hanegraaff basically was always a fraud.
There used to be a video out there of Dr. Martin‘s family exposing the cons that Hank pulled after Martin‘s death. Like I mention up above, Hank was also credibly accused of plagiarizing some of the James Kennedy‘s materials while he worked for Coral Ridge ministries. Seems like he’s always been a grifter. Problem is, a lot of people are fooled because their so-called Christian faith is a mile wide in an inch deep, if it exists at all.
Most thought, including me, Dr. Robert Morey would take Martin's place. I remember Martin telling stories of he and Morey witnessing on street corners together in their younger years. And he was a guest many times on the Bible Answer Program with Martin.
Interesting how Calvinists can see Orthodox errors, Roman Catholic errors, and Dispensationalist errors, but they can't see their own Calvinist deterministic errors.
Um, yeah. Because the “Institutes..” is a Biblical exegetical thesis. Strictly scriptural exegesis. Ineffibilis Deus is emotionalism and hogwash from a man who appeared to have never actually read the cringey embarrassment that is the Protoevangelium of James. Lather, rinse repeat from the 6th C., onward, past Ineffibilis Deus, and up to Fratelli Tutti. Kinda laughable easy to see the errors merely by reading and comparing the works.
Calvinist errors? What could *possibly* be the error in making God the author of evil, and predestining most of his creation to hell? It's all very clearly written in the bible that didn't need to be canonized by councils of the early church fathers, of which definitely didn't include apostles of Christ or the disciples of the apostles. Nope, book came right out of the sky, it did; exactly 66 books, in fact. I mean Martin Luther may have wanted to take out James because, honestly, it was just confusing what with the notion that faith without works to show for it is dead faith. But who actually wants to hear what the literal brother of Christ had to say?
When did he come to this conclusion? Because he said he believed the same thing as he did before he converted to Greek Orthodoxy.
The [Westernized] Greek[ish] Orthodox Hierarchy Answer Man. Kinda rolls right off the tongue.
If Christians have a disagreement we should always do it with gentleness and respect. You seem to be lacking that.
It’s extremely hard to hear and read the denigration of Scripture. It’s difficult to pretend that that’s okay.
What’s the theological assumption that would cause one to believe that Jesus couldn’t have had actual brothers and sisters?
The perpetual virginity of Mary?
@@danielomitted1867 Which is found in which scripture passage?
@@theservantsresource3565 It is not derived from scripture. It is a belief some people had in the early church I read a book from Clement of Alexandria he said "For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin" which fits the narrative of the the protoevangelium of James
@@grushenka995 Thanks. I think some Catholics would be happy to add many other ancient books to the scriptures, because there’s a certain mystique to ancient traditions, which they seem to enjoy. But adding all that weight to a simple gospel only serves to obscure God’s plan of salvation. Unregenerate men seem to love making a litany of rules and teachings for other men to be burdened with.
The belief in Gnostic-Christo writings from the 3rd Century crept in and were incorporated into parts of the earlier church. Now, in the 21st C. they have to force the beliefs to fit Scripture, even though we now know the sources, through scholarship. It would be better to admit wrong and repent, but they clearly can’t or won’t.
I have to admit that I used to listen to Hank before his conversion into apostasy and always suspected that he had a soft spot for Roman Catholicism but had no idea he would wind up in Eastern or Greek Orthodoxy. I shake my head every time I drive by the church he now belongs to in Charlotte.
Has anyone else besides me whoever used to listen to him both when his ministry was in California and after he moved to Charlotte, ever wondered why he never really exposed Roman Catholicism whenever there were questions about it the way he would Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Islam? I used to think it might’ve been because he didn’t want to turn off a main source of funding, until I realized it was a lot deeper than that.
What’s really sad is that Hank grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where a lot of the Dutch reformed emigrated to, and his father apparently was solidly Reformed.
Beyond that, Hank worked for D. James Kennedy for a while at Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida. He has also been accused of plagiarizing some of Dr. Kennedy‘s materials, in case you’re not aware, before starting his own ministry and moving to California.
It’s hard to believe he could’ve apostatized with his background to this extent. Frankly, it seems like his ministry has always been about enriching him as somebody filmed a tour of his huge home in Southern California right after he sold it and moved to NC, and it was quite impressive.
Given his calm, avuncular demeanor, he seems an ideal tool to deceive those who are very shallow in their Biblical knowledge, assuming they really have been converted. In other words, he does what a lot of false teachers do: count on people‘s ignorance of Scripture and the ability to interpret or know who to turn to to help them to do so.
The only apostasy here is people like you calling anyone of ANY denomination "apostates".
"The measure with which you judge it will be measured unto you".
@@Jordan-hz1wr I notice you have to attack people and not the substance of their arguments.
@@KristiLEvans1 If you don't see the absolute irony of what you just said, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
@@Jordan-hz1wr when you call someone “apostate”, it’s because of what that person has demonstrated that they believe about the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and other essentials of the Christian faith. “Apostate” is not equivalent to a personal insult. Rather, it’s a serious accusation that requires a substantive answer.
@@Jordan-hz1wr and yeah. Our measure is Scripture. That’s precisely what we’ve been saying. If your measure is “the Church”, then Scripture is subordinate anyway. We judge from different worldviews and foundations.
The “sobering reality” is that a man (Hank) who has spent most his life memorizing and teaching scripture has realized that no amount of learning and education can equal the knowledge of the Spirit within the church. He joined the Orthodox Church because it finally made SENSE of scripture and because he finally was willing to submit his wisdom to the wisdom of God. Any person can stand with a microphone and analyze Ancient Greek words… but it takes humility to surrender your wisdom to the wisdom of the bride. So thankful for the Orthodox Church after many years of being within Protestantism🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼☦️
Yes. It’s always “the Church”. Not what Jesus Christ did.
Seeing how wrong and corrupt Hank's thinking is on such a simple verse with clear and undeniable meaning, then you should question all the other nonsense eschatology he believes like Preterism. I won't trust anyone that cant get Matthew 12:47 right
I've recently talked to a young man at work who has started attending a catholic church.
I tried to tell him about all this but he kept making excuses for these, man made doctrines and dogmas.
Oh they don't worship Mary....ah look up the definition of worship.
They say that Mary was sinless....Jesus was the unblemished lamb/sinless.
They say that Mary has ascended into heaven.....Jesus ascended into heaven..
They ask Mary to intercede for them....Jesus Christ is your intercessor, mediator and redeemer.
They believe Mary can redeem them.
They call Mary theotokos, but God made Mary. He knit her together in the womb.
Jesus Christ existed before his birth. Before Abraham was I am.
Jesus chose a vessel/Mary through which he would come into the world.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jesus created this vessel for a purpose and blessed is Mary for obeying her Father.
Blessed was David but David also sinned.
Roman Catholicism has turned away from God and his word.
Their dogma and man made traditions and doctrine are lies and tools of satan to lead you away from your Good shepherd.
Notice how the powers and principalities of evil continually try to take glory, power and worship away from God.
Their teachings deminish the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the work he did on the cross.
They offer you someone else through whom you can worship and have redemption.
Luk 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”
Luk 11:28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
Jesus corrects without dishonoring.
Mat 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.
Mat 12:48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
Mat 12:49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
Mat 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Jesus Christ is our propitiation our unblemished lamb.
Jesus Christ is our mediator our intercessor for their is only ONE mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life. No one comes unto the Father but through Him.
Jesus Christ is the LION OF JUDAH.
Our Good Shepherd, our KING OF KINGS, our Lord and our God.
Jesus is from heaven, Mary is of the earth.
Jesus is God, Mary is a created being.
Jesus is alive and at the right hand of the Father.
Mary is in paradise with Jesus. In the grave for she does not have the power to raise herself as Jesus did.
And she will be raised up in the last day with the rest of us.
Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
James-We all do this to scripture to support our dogmas- including Calvinism. I humbly admit that I make God in my own image. We just need to be open to the Spirt and to learning more.- not intrenched. Also we shouldn’t let these differences separate each other. We agree that Jesus Christ is Lord.
James comes across angry most of the time and intransigent, regardless of the topic
Have you read the institutes? It’s a direct discussion of Scripture and the exegesis therein. That’s as unrelated to what Hank is doing, as advanced calculus is, from Romper Room.
I can't believe the things I am hearing coming out of Hank's mouth these days.
That Jesus is the only child of the Blessed Virgin Mary is underscored that he is referred to as the “the” Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3).
On the other hand, Mary is called “the mother of Jesus” (Jn. 2:1, 3; Acts 1:14), and never the mother of anybody else. The definite article “the” (Greek “ho”) [ The Greek letter “o” with the iota subscript] is very significant because it signifies “the one and only.” For instance, "ho theos" refers to the oneness or unicity of God (that there is only one God); thus, "ho huious" means that Jesus is the “only Son” of God as well as of Mary. Jesus Christ is at once the Son of God and the Son of Mary. Only the Father and Mary can rightly address Jesus as “Son” (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:11; 9:7; Lk. 3:22; 9:35; 2 Pt. 1:17; cf. Lk. 2:48).
Mark 6:3, ironically used by some to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity, actually proves it. In this verse, Jesus is specifically called “the Son” (ho huious) of Mary. The so-called “brothers” of Jesus are never called the children of Mary. Orthodox author Peter E. Gillquist notes: “For one thing, the Scriptures never call them the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph.
Whose children were James, Joseph, Judas and Simon (Mk. 6:3; Mt. 13:55-56)? The Catechism of the Catholic Church answers:
Against this doctrine [on the perpetual virginity of Mary] the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem, mentions James (Gr. for Jacob) as - A brother of Jesus who was unbelieving during the life of Jesus but saw Jesus in one of the resurrection appearances (Mt. 13:55; Jn. 7:5; 1 Co. 15:7) and then became a believer. He became the leader of the Jerusalem Church and presided at its first council (Ac. 15:6, 13; 21:17-18; Gal. 1:19). He is most probably also the author of the book that bears this name and brother of Jude the author of another book (Jas. 1:1; Jude 1) [ G. Douglas Young, ed., Young’s Bible Dictionary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1984) 296].
On the other hand, Joseph (Joses) is also mentioned as a brother of Jesus; also called Joses” (Mt. 13:55; 27:56; Mk. 6:3; 15:40) [ Ibid.,318].
Both James and Joseph, the “brothers” of Jesus Christ mentioned in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are said to be children of a Mary different from Mary, the mother of Jesus. Young’s Bible Dictionary mentions this Mary as - The mother of James and Joseph, and perhaps the wife of Clopas. She was present both at the Crucifixion and the Resurrection (Mt. 27: 56; Mk. 15:40, 47; 16:1; Jn. 19:25).
It’s amazing what Catholics do to support their tradition, even in the face of the biblical teachings
Except that Orthodox don't say they were cousins. They say that they were children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.
Hank is another example of the perils of believing you are a special category of Biblical teacher, and becoming addicted to the praise of men for teaching the layman what the natural understanding of Scripture does not mean. As if it is some special, exclusive revelation, unprovable and unquestionable because of the support of a gargantuan religious organization. Pitiful and toxic.
No I disagree. Hank is another example of what happens when you attempt to look at Protestantism historically and find out it's as historical as the American Civil War being fought with nuclear weapons.
Well said.
@@thepalegalilean so, I assume you think the church gave the Bible authority?
@@KristiLEvans1
No actually. The Bible always had its authority, as did the Church. God gave authority to both.
@@thepalegalilean Infallible authority is found in Scripture. The church has authority under the greater authority of Scripture.
James White doesn't know anything about the Orthodox Church.....Also when are you going to debate Jay Dyer???
Actually if anything the eastern orthodox church should consider exercising church discipline on Jay Dyer due to his behaviour.
@@shooterdownunder “We must not mind insulting men, if by respecting them, we offend God.” - Saint John Chrysostom
@@alt-monarchist ua-cam.com/video/bu1jO0cVIqU/v-deo.html
@@shooterdownunder Really???? You're only source is some dude who does not present any evidence for his clams??? The guy even blocked comments from being posted. Wow, you truly are an Intellectual if that's all you got against Jay Dyer.
@@alt-monarchist all it takes is to look up Jay Dyer exposed to find much more. The man is a fraud.
Mr. Hanegraaff took over for Walter Martin, (the original bible answer man) upon his death, if Walter only knew what his successor believes now he would turn over in his grave. All we can do is pray for Mr. Hanagraaff and hope that he will return.
"Let it never be forgotten that the existence of a counterfeit is absolute proof of the reality of the original." - Dr Walter Martin
I don’t think Hank was Dr Martin’s choice. If you could talk to Mrs. Martin, you would find the truth
I can’t believe this is Hanegraaff. I listened to him DAILY when I was on the road. Was he EVER a serious Christian? So much for Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is a heresy which is refuted within scripture itself.
@@wolkenpower LOL! the authority of scripture is refuted by the authority of scripture?
@@theservantsresource3565 Yes, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, Saint Paul says "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." He is explicitly saying that there are traditions passed down by word of mouth and not listed in the writings.
Scripture has authority but that authority comes from its status as the canonical writings of the Church. The Church existed before the New Testament did, and it is the Church that curated the canon and incorporated it into the life of the Church, which is Christ's body on earth. What protestants have done is borrow our book, thereby removing it from its place as a liturgic text of the Church, thereby robbing it of its power.
@@wolkenpower That’s hardly a refutation. That’s an assumption based on human tradition. Paul talked about false Apostles. The Apostles were the authority when alive. Paul stated in 2 Timothy 3 that all scripture is sufficient. This doesn’t mean scrioture plus the authority of men, but scripture alone.
Popes, modern apostles and modern prophets are all examples of false christs, introducing teachings that do not align with the scriptures.
But anyone here can clearly see the incoherence of depending on the twisting of scripture to argue for the non-authority if scripture. And before you say you’re not arguing for that; if scripture is not absolutely authoritative, just like Jesus and the Apostles and Evangelists believed it was, then it’s not authoritative at all, and we’re free to believe what we wish.
Scripture itself informs scripture, and we are not free to force upon it meanings that it doesn’t support.
The only person or channel that deserves to be called the "Bible Answer Man" is John kostik.
This is so sad! I had learned much from Hank over the years; read some of his books, listened to his answers on the Bible Answer Man program...he was one of the teachers who pointed out to me that "words are not univocal, but equivocal, so we have to understand the meaning by the context..."...--Until and unless you begin to make men's traditions equal with that which alone, is God-breathed... :-(
Not only does he look like John Malkovich, but he sounds and moves likes him too.
I just bought the proto-evangelium yesterday.
what do You mean, You just bought The ProtoEvangelium?
@@Chirhopher I just purchased the Proto-Evangelium of Jamez yesterday. That is what it means. I would like to read it for myself. And it just so happens to Mr. White discussed it. I thought that was a bit of coincidence.
Alex just wait until you get to the part where Mary‘s alleged midwife thrust her fingers up Mary’s you-know-what to determine if she is still a virgin while she is pregnant with Jesus. The specific Greek word for “thrust” would mean that the midwife would have broken Mary’s hymen, and therefore she would no longer be a virgin. So you can tell that it was a man who had no knowledge of female anatomy who wrote it.
@@BornAgainRN That's what they tell me. 🤣🤣🤣
@@BornAgainRN I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing because you are not the first person to tell me this information. I think about that and just uncomfortably cringe. 😬😬😬
They view the bible as part of a wider tradition and the lay people just accept the "interpretation " of the church leaders. They argue that it is the church that gave us the canon so the authority of scripture is made subservient to the authority of the church.
They don't seem to have a good understanding of 2nd Timothy 3:15-16 or 2nd Peter 1:20-21 needless to say.
The scriptures refute this. If what they’re saying is true, why aren’t there more scriptures past John? We should expect new scriptures to be written right up to the present day. No Catholic will tell you that an encyclical bears equal weight to the new Testament. Even Catholics recognize the uniqueness of scripture. It’s unavoidable. The events occured at a particular time in history, after which proohecy and revelation ended.
@@theservantsresource3565 I totally agree. Scripture is God breathed so it came directly from Him although He used human vessels to write what He intended.
Peter's assertion that "no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" makes it clear who is in charge of the process and guiding it.
Both Catholics and Orthodox tend to place a lot of emphasis in the authority that was delegated to the apostles and to the church. Apostolic succession is a key belief for both groups. I think a lot of their followers tend to believe that they don't even need to refute our arguments since our churches are not legitimate to begin with since we don't have this "unbroken chain of succession" dating back to the apostles. For me this is the same argument the Jews used against Jesus in John 8 when they claimed succession from Abraham as a means to prove they were right.
They always try to assert that Protestants are teaching something new that was never before believed in the history of the church and they try to use the church fathers to prove that their traditions are the historical faith and date back to the apostles. When you show them quotes proving that the early fathers believed in justification by faith alone, they either stop engaging with you or accuse you of quote mining.
Also showing them quotes demonstrating how highly the early fathers treated scripture can be an eye opener for them.
There is an Augustine quote which is a good one where he clearly says that he tests everything by scripture since only scripture is divinely inspired and free from error.
Orthodox tend to believe in the eucharist as a sacrifice for sins as do Catholics so I always bring in Hebrews 10 to refute this. You can also find quotes from some early fathers showing that many believed that the bread and wine remained bread and wine and Jesus words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were spiritual and symbolic.
All in all they don't really believe in salvation by grace through faith in my opinion. It is salvation by careful observation of the liturgy and the sacraments and doing good works. Humans are custodians in charge of the salvation process in their view and baptism regenerates rather than the Holy Spirit giving life to those He wills.
@@philblagden Religious men who are not themselves regenerate love to obscure the gospel message through laying on heavy burdens of sophisticated rules and teachings on lay people. That’s the bottom line. The NAR is the same way. No wonder some of them want to unite
And I have the Scriptures and The Holy Spirit over traditions and church.
Cursed is the the man that trusts in man rather then GOD.
Off-topic: Hank’s voice is remarkably similar to Jim Henson’s.
Because Church Tradition.... Come on Man
It's so obvious that Hank is wrong that you just scratch your head and wonder how can that be. But the answer is simple.
God-created it that way from the beginning to make his truth known. If he doesn't create liars then there would be no truth tellers.
It's how it was from the beginning. God creates Adam he he falls away. He create Israel and they fall away. Then last the gentiles, and they fall away.
Then the last trumpet blows and everyone realises the difference between good and evil clearly that God had shown all along
What about the fact that the firstborn was unique per father and Jesus is the literal firstborn of his family?
For example, in Jacob's family, even though he had 4 wives, only ONE child was the first born.
The same thing happens with Jesus. According to Luke 2:7 and Luke 2:21-24, Jesus was the first born of his family and there is no way to say otherwise.
Conclusion: Mariology is false.
In Catholic use, "father" can mean a priest. Therefore, we should conclude that God the Father is just a priest and not a supernatural eternal being.
LMAO !!!!
Wow... You really pulled that one out of ass didn't you???
Who didn't see this coming when Hannegraaff converted to eastern orthodoxy?
The only grounds to take the plain meaning of the words to be something other, is the need to substantiate later accretion that _must be read into the text in order to justify the belief_ .
A great example of how lexical fallacy can lead to a chain of errors.
I think this has more to do with pride than lexical errors. Even before he completely left the reservation, you could plainly see this was a man consumed by pride and arrogance
Tradition Answer Man cant support his belief with scripture.
Not sure how people who interpret scripture differently for a few hundred years think they can rebuttal the faith being taught for 2000 years. You do not have the upper hand being a Protestant, you literally have 45,000 different interpretations based on individual understandings that came into being through pride only within the last few hundred years.
There's enuogh archived tapes of hank. Someone should put together a tape where hank debates himself 😂😂
So, is James' argument that the semantic domain must be collapsed because nobody actually knows what was specifically meant? It seems to me that he's defaulting to normative interpretations because he refuses to acknowledge verbal traditions. I don't really hold to a specific position on this, but James' argumentation is pretty silly. A strong hermeneutic typically considers extra-Biblical sources when evaluating context.
If the extra-biblical sources were 1st century accounts referred to or otherwise supported by the New Testament authors, or if they had the same reputation for accuracy, soundness of doctrine and were written by those who were closest to Jesus or their disciples, hundreds of millions of Christians would not regard them as mere human traditions and not on the same level of spiritual authority as Scripture.
The New Testament itself is the earliest Christian tradition. The New Testament authors were the earliest church fathers. Since Christians agree that the New Testament was divinely inspired, all later tradition should be judged by how well it conforms to the Scriptures, not vice versa.
Why does James White deny the concept of Mary's perpetual virginity on the basis of the text's natural reading, yet when Calvinism is denied and rebuked on the basis of the text's natural reading, James White will go crazy and rebuke his opponent?
When James is accused of believing gnostic heresies, he outright denies it, but he actually believes gnostic ideologies. How hypocritical is he?
Can you describe the natural reading that denies and rebukes Calvinism? Like give a biblical defense for this assertion?
While I don't think Hank should be expounding on Orthodoxy because he's clearly not understanding, I'm equally amazed at how little James knows about second temple judaism. His understanding of Mary, her virginity and the relationship of Jesus to his siblings is appalling. Mary was a Jewish virgin in the second temple period. The term Virgin is explicitly confined to girls and women who are operating in the Temple (ie like nuns). When they reach maturity they are removed from the Temple and either returned home or placed under the guardianship of someone. In Mary's case, she was betrothed to an older widower (Joseph) until such time as she is able to return to the Temple (Menopause). This is why she is betrothed yet does not "know" a man. Joseph already had children (the siblings of Jesus). Mary bore no other children.
Any biblical sources for any of this?
Biblically, the word virgin referred to any young woman past puberty and of marriageable age who was not yet married, and was assumed and expected to be a virgin.
"I was wrong!", says Hank...yeah, maybe you were also wrong about the doctrines of grace.
People should take the easiest explanation, not taking a route around it.. There's no explaination that ever mention they were Jesus's cousins, but for Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban, there are explaining who they were to each other.
The explanation of course naturally given to explain it further that they are not brothers, but uncle and nephew because the word naturally comes into the meaning of brothers, so it was needed explanation that they're "brother" In the meaning of uncle and nephew.
But in case of Jesus, there were never mentioned more than brother.
So naturally it refers to the first and main meaning, which is real brothers and sisters.
That's naturally how people communicate in real life.
If you using a word that have double meaning, you would explain it further if what you mean is beyond that.
But if not, there is no need for you to explain it further.
Lobot needs to NEVER wear headphones like that.
James White cannot properly rebut Hank because he ignores the historical church.
I love Hank. As a brother in Christ, I love him. But I am profiundly saddened by his "about face" on sound Biblical theology.
Mary's body was not her own,it is for her husband to use as it was made for,in the bonds of marriage .Would God deny Joseph sex with his wife? Absolutely not! They had a bu ch of kids,they were fruitful and multipled!!
This man has destroyed Walter Martin's ministry. Shame on him.
No. There Shouldn't be same on him. It's not his fault that the protestant movement is about as historical as nuclear power being used in the Roman Empire.
@@thepalegalilean Does History automatically mean truth?
@@WayneFocus
Yes. Something in history is true.
@@thepalegalilean Older does not guarantee preserved doctrine. The pharasees are more historical does that make them and their added traditions the truth. Paul was the founder and appointed the bishops in the church of Corinth and not soon after false doctrines arose which Paul had to correct. He told them to use his letters, our scripture, to fight against this false doctrine.
Excellent dissection of Hank and his FALL from doctrine:(
Very disappointing to hear Hank use the same arguments he refuted for years. There is no new revelation here. Walter Martin would be shocked.
Bible Answer Man has became the Bible but man. I know the Bible says this BUT... Becoming an expert at molding Scripture to pigeon hole it into his theological presupposition. Mark and avoid!
Of course, the Bible is in error. Of course the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct. Come on, Christians. Let's use our critical thinking skills
ROFL, yep, outside the church, there's no salvation.
@Nathaniel J. Franco Are you a good person?
Lol
This is really 'low hanging fruit' to JW, an easy win. The R. C. church and the E. O. church have repeated this outlandish 'argument' so many times, so to some it has become sounding valid. In fact, it's not an argument at all. It's just a claim, a claim to prefer a remote secondary meaning without giving a single argument for it. They only prefer this translation, because of their doctrine, so it can never be proof. It's just a circular reasoning.
Let me just say that the Orthodox and Papists both have a lot of disturbing and wrongheaded doctrines. But this just doesn't strike me as worth spending any time in refuting. I don't think Mary was a perpetual virgin, but I also don't think it matters in any way if she was. If we are going to focus on the errors of Mary, what matters is the gross idolatry committed in praying to her and her elevation in being considered sinless. One additional reason I say this is I think Luther and Calvin both believed in perpetual virginity- so it's not a big deal to me.
"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin"
- Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.
"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin-something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.
- Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."
Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.
@@zena7006 Luther got this one wrong. Genesis 3:15 states that it is the offspring of the woman, not the woman herself, who crushes the serpent’s head.
Luther made a mighty contribution to the faith on the main issues he focused on such as sola scriptura and justification by faith. But I am almost relieved to know that he wasn’t correct on everything. It gives me assurance to continue to place my trust in God and His word above man and his traditions.
A lot of Mary worshipers here.
I think what you mean to say is that there are a lot of people that actually have arguments that make sense.
The Calvinist lost the debates vs Catholic & Eastern Orthodox. No Prostastant has the Church Father's on there side, they Cherry 🍒 pick! God bless 🗝️🗝️🙏 why do you think a lot of Prostastants become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox because they the Bible & Church Father's 🛐
I think it’s hilarious. This guy thinks he’s rebuking Hank Graaff, but in reality, he’s also rebuking all 12 apostles, and every single priest, bishop and church leader that has been in the original faith since it’s very inception for 2000 years sorry not buying it.
Dr. Robert Morey was right to call him Hank Handicap ! And I am NOT Protestant !
Hank Hanefraaff was always a questionable guy. Didn't he teach replacement theology or some wacky belief?
Replacement theology is biblical. So I don't know why he'd be whacky for preaching that.
@@thepalegalilean No it isn't. So that is why. It is a dead giveaway that someone is confused.
@@investfluent4143
It's literally all over Paul's teachings. The old covenant has been done away with and replaced with the new.
The particular people that had been the Jews have been done away with. To be God's chosen people requires belief, Not blood relation.
If replacement theology isn't biblical than you ought to be a Jew. It also means that Jesus' crucifixion means absolutely nothing. Which also means you are currently dead in your sins.
@@thepalegalilean It is all over Paul's teachings? Paul the guy who introduces himself in every letter as the Apostle to the gentiles? So as to not be confused with people like Peter who wrote only to the twelve tribes scattered abroad? I have to disagree. The Bride of Christ, despite what catholicism taught, is Israel. The church is the Body of Christ, Christ being the Head. The two are not merged until the Wedding of the Lamb. You have to throw away a lot of meaning to end up with replacement theology.
I heard a Catholic apologist use Romans 12:1 to communicate the “unbloody sacrifice“ that they participate in ritually at the mass. So for them it is really easy to find scriptures that support their agenda. You just have to find the word sacrifice anywhere in the Bible and show that we can continue it… bam! And it’s so preposterous and ridiculous, that it’s hard to refute
They do the same with the church fathers if they say the Eucharist is a sacrifice and say case closed but don't point out the fathers who refer to prayer, fasting and giving to the poor as a sacrifice.
Around the Bible Answer Man...
Hank is a false teacher
Why don't you debate Hank face to face ? That's sort of gutless just to run a video. Why not be a man, and debate in a fair setup? At least you allow comments on your channel unlike your cowardly buddy with his "Wretched" channel. In fact you and that guy could take on Hank and professor Nathan Jacobsen in a live debate over many issues. It could be over many weeks, and posted on UA-cam. Let everyone decide for themselves after hearing both sides of the issues. Of course that would never happen because they would wipe the floor with you and Mr. Wretched. I am not even Eastern Orthodox myself, but you can't hold a candle to Hank, and against Prof Jacobsen, it would be laughable.
Hanks has lost his mind, he is clueless.
In Archko volume chapter 5 Jesus mother herself says that Jesus had siblings. That seems to be a real and true valid historical document.
The Archko is not valid. It is considered fraudulent by scholars. There are who sections that have been discovered copied from other books.
@@KristiLEvans1
What about chapter 5?
The Bible is all copies.
Scholars find The Bible to be fraudulent is well.
@@billyr9162 I didn’t say the Bible was fraudulent. I was talking about Archko.
@@billyr9162 believe me, I was very interested in the Archko, myself.
@@KristiLEvans1
Yeah I think you said scholar said it was fraudulent because there are copies.
The scholar say the same thing about The Bible.
Some scholars say it's real. I don't know.
I read the interview and it looks pretty good to me. If it is real then is very interesting.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Time for CRI to give this guy his walking papers. Dr. Martin is rolling in his grave.
I first heard Hank on the Bible Answer Man in the nineties and was surprised that he affirmed modern day 'tongues.' It seems that Mr. H. H. has drifted pretty far since those days. Johnny Mac ripped Hank hard when he jumped ship and swam to the E.O. inflatable craft. A pitiful mess.
And yet your boy John Calvin believed in Mary's continued virginity.
Hank has gone out from us....