Dealing with Atheism and Catholicism: The Mark Series Pt 18 (6:1-6)

[@DaisyPumpkin23]

Hi there. I've been 'agnostic' for about 40 years. My family went to a 'mainstream' Christian church when I was a child, but my family weren't particularly 'devout', and about the age of 10 my faith just started evaporating & fell away. However, two months ago I started having a major 'spiritual awakening', and started praying again. I also bought myself a Bible (KJV) & started reading it, and realised it's a lot more profound than I realised when I was a child. I started thirsting for more knowledge and understanding, and came across this channel in my searches. I have watched SO much on this channel, and have gained SO much understanding (particularly your videos on The Trinity, which I have watched over & over again, until I think I really DO understand it - thank you SO much). I have also started going to my local 'Church Of England' / 'Anglican' church , and it's been BEAUTIFUL for me (on my second visit, they even asked me to do a Bible reading, which I was delighted to do). It's a lovely church & lovely congregation, though I'm saddened that this beautiful Victorian era church built for hundreds of people only gets an attendance of about 12 - 15 people on a Sunday morning. I feel I'm in the 'RIGHT' church, but I still have so many questions about The Bible, and after the services it's difficult to pin anybody down to discuss the questions I have as a result of my Bible study. It's NOT a fault of the people. It's just a fault of this church struggling to keep going & keep it's doors open. I really wish there was somebody here like you, that could sacrifice the time to help me come to the understanding that I wish. Any advice would be appreciated.

[@shnobo9471]

DaisyPumpkin23 I will be praying but, what sort of questions do you got bud maybe some of us could help.

[@harbingerofepiphany3155]

Through skepticism & Doubt I facilitate the merit & equity & And total exercise of all virtue through Faith!!

[@Sadielady1978]

This is happy news indeed!! I'm so glad to have a new brother/sister in Christ!

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

Such very happy news! Praise God, for He's called you to Him. I recommend that you start by not taking on a Protestant or Catholic bias, but read the Scriptures (pray pray pray) and read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. They were taught directly by the Apostles. You will learn what the Apostles passed on (which is what is called 'tradition' in how the Church worshiped and what it believed. It is important to ground yourself in this, as it helps you understand the Bible. Then find a Church leader to help you understand it more fully. But don't immediately go the Protestant traditionalist points of view. The true Church has been around since Pentecost, and existed for over 1500 years before Protestantism even came into the picture. But most importantly, seek God and His guidance.

[@DaisyPumpkin23]

Hello Shnobo. Thank you for your reply. The first major question I have relates to understanding that The Bible is the COMPLETE understanding of the path to salvation through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Though the heart may be 'deceitful', I truly 'feel' (& through prayer) that (despite only having read the 4 gospels and the books of Genesis and Exodus so far - I am continuing reading) that God, through The Bible, has told us EVERYTHING we need to know. I am also aware that there are many false churches (Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists etc) who believe that The Bible is 'incomplete' and that further 'prophets' are to come afterwards. In my limited reading of The Bible so far, I have only come across one passage (Luke 16: 16) that that presents a case that God's word is COMPLETE (and there shall be no prophets after John - if my understanding of this is correct ?), yet I know that the false churches will dispute the 'interpretation' of that verse. Can you give me any additional CONFIRMATION that NO further 'revelation' is necessary after The Bible ?

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

I'm GREATLY enjoying The Mark Series Mike! I've started going through them a SECOND time... This time with my wife & daughter. You've made me see things, in the Gospel of Mark, that I hadn't noticed before.

[@Yesica1993]

The fact that Jesus's own family did not believe in Him gives me so much hope. I am so thankful this was included in Scripture. I've always felt like failure in my family because many of them have little interest in living for Christ. Maybe it's not all my fault. (I'm sure some, but at least not completely.)

[@christiskingforever2880]

Your true family is found in Christ.

[@billhildebrand5053]

Yesica1993 I agree too... my immediate family too.. I’ll pray for you..

[@phycho40]

@Peter Xuereb what makes you think that?

[@dopestpost]

After a lifetime of new age theology, your series sure is a breath of fresh air. God is good. 🤍

[@geoffjs]

Your next logical step will ultimately be into the One True Catholic Church

[@dapugloaf5999]

30:19 At the time I was listening to this, I was thinking about how I kept sinning over and over and just could not stop. I felt like I was letting God down after all he had done for me, but then as soon as Mike started saying this, it was like a light just turned on. The second he started, it was like it was Jesus himself was talking directly to me, saying "Don't worry about it, just try your best." Thanks Mike, and of course Jesus.

[@PETERJOHN101]

No where does Jesus tell us to do our best. Jesus said, "whom the Son sets free is free indeed." And, "those who sin are the slave of sin." If you are trapped in a cycle of sin, you need to seek God with genuine repentance and come to know Christ.

[@julianaallen8477]

Hi, I know you wrote this comment 3 years ago, but I just wanted to say I felt the exact same. It tore me apart, not that I'm perfect now I just had a few repetitive sin issues. I hope your doing better and have won that spirit/ flesh battle.

[@jeffwarren6906]

This is wonderful , 18 pts and its only ch 6 . This is why I { my opinion } think that a believer shouldnt just study alone , Seeking out a qualified Teacher and listening closely , exposes you to a much deeper understanding of scripture { even familar ones } . I have read Mark countless times in the last 40 yrs and never got even half of what Mike just revealed to me . Thanks Pastor Mike

[@ferchinc]

Accepting that Mary had more children, which implies that she did not remain a virgin for the rest of her life, does not seem to represent a problem for anyone but Catholics. They give too much importance to the fact that Mary was a virgin, and the fact of acknowledging that she did not stay that way seems to detract from her sanctity, in the eyes of Catholics. The fact that Mary was the woman chosen by God to come Himself to Earth as a man to save us shows how holy she was here, and even if she had more children and stopped being a virgin it does not change this at all. Sadly the Catholic Church twisted the whole issue with her to the point that they worship her and give her a place even above God himself to fall into idolatry.

[@jamjuice]

It’s not necessary that they care about the virginity itself, but that the Roman Catholic Church might be wrong about this issue, which would cause its doctrine of infallibility to crumble.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Exactly there dug themselves into a hole. The more internet becomes available the more people can study and look at scholorship and see opinions Not only that Francis. Is showing the problem with there doctrines

[@walkingtherange5680]

@@r.a.panimefan2109only issue is you cannot prove Mary had other children from Bible alone. The brothers of Jesus can be - Mary and Joseph’s children - Joseph’s children from previous marriage - Close family members. Ie. Cousins These are all possibilities and you can’t prove nature of their relationship from Bible alone. You can certainly make assumptions and pretend you are right.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

@walkingtherange5680 yes u can. The plane reading says so. U have to read theology into text to suggest cousins. Also to say know is oft a euphemism of intercourse. Joeseph did know mary till after christ was born. What else does that mean. It says it was brothers and sisters. There are actually some catholic scholars that admit it. So just stop lol u can glean all the info nessesary

[@walkingtherange5680]

@@r.a.panimefan2109 I said it’s a possibility. If you are going to settle on one definition, you have to rule out the other possibilities first. The Greek word used to described brethren can also be used to describe people of the same family. In Genesis 13:8-13 Abraham and Lot are described as brethren even though they have an uncle and nephew relationship. Same Greek word Adelphoi is used. So if you read brethren of Jesus, how do you conclude they are Mary’s children even though there are other possibilities that are equally plausible? I’m not saying you are wrong, you just haven’t proven your case.

[@mitromney]

I'm a catholic and I'm ashamed of my church for Mary's dogmas. Obviously Jesus had brothers. Not only that's what the Bible clearly teavhes but also if Mary and Joseph did not have multiple children, they would be considered a cursed family. Throughout the old testament we see that children are blessings and that wife and husband are meant to have sex and have children, this is God's first command. It wasn't until Catholic church went through it's own sexual revolution and withdrawn from anything sexual in nature that it concluded that priests ought to not marry and that Mary obviously never had sex too. And now even though we grew so much smarter, we can never go back and change it. The reason why we catholics ended up with a false dogma, is because we have dogmatised ourselves into a corner. If a Pope or any council ever tried to reboot Mary's cult they would've destroyed the church or at the very least split it in two. Church is much more interested in keeping their unity than in fixing wrong teachings. Nobody will ever go there, we are forced to uphold this ridiculous heresy forever. For that, I'm sorry protestant brothers. Fortunately, it's mot really an issue of salvation. I don't think belief in Mary's virginity can destroy God's grace. Many catholics like myself turn our backs on absurds of our church's theology and we try to save as many brothers as possible, teaching them you can only be saved by grace, through faith, outside of any works. Peace!

[@bridgefin]

You are not Catholic. To be Catholic you have to accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. Your pride puts you above the Holy Spirit and that's a very unhealthy place to be.

[@bridgefin]

@@alephnaught8343 Not sure what a papist is. But is English your first language? I never said that Catholics have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I stated what was required to be Catholic.

[@mckster56]

Amen

[@rd77513]

I wonder why Christ gave his mother to St John on the cross. In 1st century Judaism, you think one of Mary's other kids would have stepped up. Hold on Mary's only child was on the cross and God gave the disciple he loved a Mother. Christ was born through Mary and we as Catholics find Christ in and through her. Hail Mary Full of Grace...

[@dumbnumb162]

@@rd77513no. John 7:5. They didn’t believe

[@highlightning6693]

Very glad I watched this. I'm one of those people who scrutinizes *everything* it seems. Like so many of the promises of the Lord in the OT. For decades my mind has posited, "yeah, but He was talking to Israel and not ME." ha ha It can get maddening, man, analyzing every single detail. It's contributed to a great amount of doubt, and I do mean *great*, in my life as to where I stand with Him and which promises are indeed for each of us individually and which are meant for Israel. Your videos are a huge help, Mike.

[@HickoryDickory86]

Keep in mind that the "nations" and "peoples" are also mentioned frequently by the prophets, whether for good or ill (depending on their own faithfulness to justice and righteousness, as well as whether they blessed or cursed Israel). That would include you, as you are a person among "the nations." Also remember this: the role Israel plays in history is to bring about God's blessings upon all the families of the earth (Gen 12:1-3; Rom 3, 11). Even though God dispersed and disinherited the nations at Babel (Gen 11) and created Israel through Abraham as his own possession (Gen 12, 15), he always remained nearby to be found by any who would seek after him, and always planned to call them back home to himself through Jesus the Messiah (Isa 2; Jer 31; Acts 17:16-34; Rev 4-5).

[@PETERJOHN101]

Whatever God has promised Jacob he offers to all of us through adoption. Jacob seeks a country, we all seek a country.

[@fancimcguffin2227]

I follow evidence. I appreciate that you do too and you give it. Evidence is why I reject Catholicism. I believe the gospel. I don’t believe their institutional teachings.

[@johnnonamegibbon3580]

Are you aware of the Marcion controversy with the Gospels? I also am more rational but am Christian. The Gospels likely were not known until the 2nd century, No church fathers mention them, until Irenaeus. That's really late.

[@annanimus3943]

The Sabbath begins at sundown Friday because Genesis says, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

[@l-cornelius-dol]

Maybe the author of Genesis described the demarcation of creation epochs this way because his readers already believed that the new day began at sundown? Or maybe it’s a coincidence and Genesis’ point is to draw the reader to the Hebrew etymology of _erev_ as chaos and _boker_ as order?

[@jacovdmerwe2655]

Thank you for the sober reminder. Genesis is regarded as open to any interpretation as long as such interpretation is in line with the secular world. However, as you have rightly stated, Genesis would be taken as scripture that explains the need for Christ. Without this foundation for the Gospel, all sorts of heresies can be generated without noticing the glaring contradiction between the start of God's interaction with man, and the sound of the last trumpet.

[@jacovdmerwe2655]

@@l-cornelius-dol or maybe you are confused about which parts of scripture you would like to edit.

[@ZombieDelicacy]

@@l-cornelius-dol 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, and for training in righteousness.” The “author” of Genesis is God, though the one writing His words was human. Something to consider!

[@l-cornelius-dol]

@@ZombieDelicacy : Of course, and I completely agree. But the human author, whom God works through in cooperation not by means of robotic control, exerts their influence as well. I was only pointing out that God is often doing something much deeper in his revelation, via Hebrew, than might seem obvious to the modern reader in English. For example, the core meaning of _Yom_ which is rendered as "day" in Genesis 1, is simply "a finite period of time" -- do a word study on the _Hebrew_ word (easy with a Strong's Concordance online) and you'll be amazed how often it is translated as "year", "years", "time", many days, and other variants like that. In fact, the same word in the same immediate context is used in Genesis 2, and there it incontestably refers to all of the creation "days" of Genesis 1. Something else to consider. 🙂

[@timkusan4370]

I totally agree, Pastor Mike. The internet is indeed, the modern synagogue. It’s probably the best way in my opinion, to share the truth. Whether it is video, or typed out where anyone can watch/read, it’s possible to impact innumerable lives even long after you’re gone. These are times where all should be so bold to use this avenue to it’s fullest!

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Not to mention. Any can do a internet search on greek If something like a tradition doesn't feel right. Greek and scholorship We live I. A time when it's easy to learn and spread new thought.

[@fancimcguffin2227]

I have heard many atheists claim they are following evidence and not emotion. When questioned on a deeper level, many of them reveal they’re motivated by rage. Often it’s rage towards the father figure.

[@johnnonamegibbon3580]

While crappy motives are likely present, there are rational reasons one would find the idea that this scripture is true or else we're all condemned for vague infractions irrational. I suspect everyone has crappy motives deep down as we're all human. But that the rational arguments still should be addressed.

[@bridgefin]

Dig deep enough and you will often find a father wound at the bottom of the atheist.

[@09251976100]

Excellent excellent biblical support regarding Jesus, Mary & Jesus' brothers and sisters! I'm somewhat of a Greek nerd, so your showing me the distinctions found in Scripture in the Greek words for immediate family relations or relatives was awesome! I continue to praise God for your faithfulness to the Word of God and your ministry!

[@itisnow]

The tradition has always been that Joseph had 7 children from a previous marriage so they were half brothers..

[@sarahfaith316]

Sooo good! I always love your prayers at the end too. Thanks for always including that part.

[@klfanderson2491]

I really enjoyed this, wise Brother, and I look forward to sharing and watching more... May God bless you and yours all the way up to your hearing those incredible Words, "Well done, good and faithful servant... Enter into My rest."

[@klfanderson2491]

I hope this doesn't offend, but, please, be careful of putting whole groups into "boxes". I happen to be a member of that "older generation", you mentioned, and, though I won't argue -eutics, -isms, -ologies, or translations, I use my skills as an old hippie-artist-JesusFreak to reach out to the world on the Internet. To top it off, my engineer/ComputerGeek husband (who's been working on computers since they filled rooms instead of microchips, 52 years ago) helps me serve AND has his own ministry sharing the Good News as well. Most of all, we know what The Word of God says, so how could we not be about our Master's business till He returns? The truth is that I'm always trying to find out what pleases our King, and I know I'm not alone doing that in my generation... :)

[@adastrajane]

I don't understand why Jesus wasn't recognised as a prophet since his family knew that he was born of a virgin and the angels appeared at his birth, and the three kings searched for him. And when they call him out of the house and say that he is out of his mind? Surely, his family would have KNOWN that he was special hence why would they say he was out of his mind? Very confusing.

[@elizabethshaw7472]

Remember His parents knew who Jesus was, but that doesn't mean His siblings and neighbors believed. If your parents said your brother was born while your mom was a virgin, but all your neighbors insisted that your parents were adulterers and the virgin story was made up, how long would you believe your parents?

[@KerryLiv]

It's really cool that we know of one of Jesus's brothers, James, the author of one of the new testament books.

[@donajohanna]

A love your explaination around 40 minutes!!! That helps a lot in all the confusion of all these false healing 'sermons' 💙 (sorry for my bad Dutch english)

[@mckster56]

Your english is great. God bless you

[@Justas399]

Here is how we know Mary had children of her own: The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching. When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 The same word for brothers in Matthew 13:55 is the same word used for brothers of Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:18 There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. Never used for the brothers of Jesus.

[@Justas399]

itisnow if I’m not mistaken that tradition that Joseph had other children before he married Mary has no evidence for it. Scholars reject it. How could David’s parents take a vow of chastity when David had brothers?

[@itisnow]

@@Justas399 After his parents had other children obviously! But the parents couldn't keep it and David the last child was born. The community teased David all his life for being illegitimate which is why he said in sin did my mother conceive me. That had nothing to do with original sin as Jews don't believe in original sin. I'm just saying that's what Jews think. Ezekiel 18 v 20. "The soul who sins it shall die. The son will not share the guilt of the father." What govt executes a serial killer and then also kills a child? The orthodox church has never believed in inherited guilt only that we inherit a sin nature. Protestants inherited faulty doctrine from the RCC. Also if protestants hate tradition then they should never call the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as these gospels have no name. They should call them A, B, C and D. Also please use just the bible to come up with Trinity. I guarantee 100% you will fail. Protestants are dishonest!

[@Justas399]

itisnow if you don’t believe we “inherited a sin nature “ then what should I make of this?Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned⁠- - Romans 5:12 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. - Romans 5:19

[@itisnow]

@@Justas399Please re read. I DID say we inherit a sin nature but no one is guilty of Adam's sin. That's stupid and led to disgusting beliefs like Calvin who said non elect babies burn in hell for ever. What an evil man. Your second verse is exactly why for the first 300 years of the church they taught universalism and that hell is temporary purification. The first many = all. The second many also MUST mean ALL. Protestants are terrible at reading the bible as they only look for what they want the bible to say.

[@itisnow]

@@Justas399 Also Luther and Calvin didn't dare deny the ever Virginity of Mary. So much for their sola scriptura. I challenge you to come up with the complete doctrine of the Trinity using only the bible. I guarantee you will fail. You will come up with a heresy like the one Calvin murderered servetus for. The irony! What a violent man. The early church were pacifist and the Romans were angry with them because they refused military service. Also the church DID start to honour celibacy. How can you read Paul and not know he said it's better not to marry. He said married couples should practise chastity for a time in their marriage !!!

[@darrylsturgis7389]

It is possible, also as a caveat, that Mary may have still been alive during the writing of the 4 Gospels, and could provide first hand confirmation, along with the other surviving apostles, to the true testimony of this written book to church of believers.

[@thomasbailey921]

Well we know that she was with the Apostle John and features prominently in his Gospel's description of the Passion.

[@christopherharvey4257]

She did. That's how Luke got his account of the birth story as well as other passages with just her.

[@bridgefin]

@@thomasbailey921 I don't think that it is a coincidence that John's gospel is so lofty after he spent so much tie with Mary. What insight must she have had after spending 33 years in direct relationship with Jesus.

[@mitchellosmer1293]

quote---it is possible, also as a caveat, that Mary may have still been alive during the writing of the 4 Gospels, and could provide first hand confirmation, along with the other surviving apostles, to the true testimony of this written book to church of believers.--unquote Nope--She was given to John at the cross; He took her to his house. According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary technically could have been betrothed at about 12, but most Jewish women in Palestine of her time married during their late teens or early twenties. Hyppolitus of Thebes says that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD. THe Jewish custom is for girls age 13 to go through a ritual to be considered at age of consent.. IF_-Mary was age -say 14- at the time of Jesus birth-----He was age 33 at his death-----14 plus 33--plus 11 equals 58 years old. After research, the average age for an Israelite at that time was 60 to die. ---Mary died in 41AD----- Mary year of birth--10BCE.---??? John died at age 98----- (At what age did Apostle John die? 88 years (11 AD-99 AD)

[@patticarey9016]

Great teaching, Mike! I'm going to relisten and take notes on the whole Mary and Jesus's brothers thing. Thank you!

[@TymP321]

Love your work. New subscriber. Just a thought here - just because pottery newer than a town, is discovered IN that town, doesn't change the history OF the town. An extreme example is discovering a pencil at a dig site in Egypt and trying to say Egypt was founded in the 1500s. I take many historical dating methods with a grain of salt (or salt block in cases) since most times folks want to stamp a date on something they're trying to prove an existing agenda.

[@larrysergent5478]

Pastor Mike, o so enjoy your teaching. What makes it so strong is your reliance on scriptura. You draw succinct nexus lines to uphold doctrine like few others. God bless you and your ministry.

[@HowToBeChristian]

Hey Larry, Mike wanders from the Scriptures a lot. He claims to be a "sola scriptura" guy, but Mike adds SO MUCH to the Bible that is not found there. Just a word of advice. Read the Bible for yourself, and see if it always agrees with what Mike claims that it says. Mike gets a lot correct, but he also makes up a bunch of stuff. Mike seems like a nice guy, so nothing against Mike, but the facts are the facts: Mike adds his own false teachings to the Bible.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

@@HowToBeChristian - You are correct. And I have caught some errors in his theology. But he's developed a following that believe he is infallible. As a human, the odds are that some of what he presents is incorrect. It's up to the followers to study and read the Bible and to have a foundation in truth in order to catch these. Not follow willy-nilly. Even Paul wrote how some said they were of Paul, others of Peter etc... and how wrong this was. We are of Christ! The following "I am of Mike Winger" has developed, and that is never a good thing. I like him a lot, believe he is very sincere. But I check out what he says because he is not, as I said before, infallible. And his teachings are not 100% correct.

[@HowToBeChristian]

@@rafaelcarbone1387 Glad to hear that you caught on to Mike's false teachings as well! And yes, he definitely has a following of people who blindly believe him; hopefully they'll learn to fact check Mr. Winger on his false teachings as well.

[@larrysergent5478]

U people who responded to me sound like u know a lot more than Mike, but o ly appear to make vague insinuations about him with nothing substantial.Are you plants?

[@HowToBeChristian]

@@larrysergent5478 Hey Larry, I would never say we "know a lot more than Mike". What we know is that what Mike is saying is false in many situations. That is why it is best to fact check Mike on his teachings, because he gets some stuff correct, and some stuff incorrect. Feel free to check out our channel for more information; Mike recently tried to cover up facts we shared about him.

[@dejavudisciple]

Lovin story time with Mike, teaching story time with Jesus

[@lu1982]

You got me even taking notes!!! Blessings from Spain 💕

[@Vezmus1337]

I think there are two good arguments that Mary was in fact a perpetual virgin. The first argument is that the Scriptural support for Mary being the mother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon simply isn't in the text. Does the Bible ever say that Mary and Joseph had intimate relations after the birth of Jesus? Does it ever say that Mary became pregnant a second, third, fourth, or fifth time? Does it ever say that James, Joseph, Judas, or Simon are the sons of Joseph or the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus? No it doesn't, and if any of these were the case it would be odd to leave these significant facts out considering that Mary is after all the mother of Jesus Christ. In fact, to the contrary, it does say that James was the son of Alpheaus (or Clopas) and that Mary the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joseph. In the Gospel of John, we read that while on the cross Jesus tells his mother, referring to John the 'beloved disciple', "Woman, behold thy son!" and then to John, "Behold, thy mother!" in which he entrusts his mother to the care of John. This makes sense in the context of Jewish tradition and law where women had to be in the care of men, since Jesus will no longer be able to care for her and presumably Joseph her wife has already passed away. However this does not make sense if Jesus has four other brothers by Mary, or even more unlikely if Mary had remarried. The best explanation of this verse is that Jesus was her only child, and Joseph her only lawful husband. Your argument that since in Mark 6:3 it uses the word "brother" that they must be full-blood biological brothers, I find particularly flimsy. In the parallel reading of Matthew 13:55 it reads "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" Are we then to also suppose a literal reading here that Jesus is the full-blood biological son of Joseph the carpenter? Obviously not, as Christians must necessarily believe Jesus to be the son of God. So by insisting upon such a literalistic (and dare I say dogmatic) reading of the text, you can if you wish go so far as to nullify the very divinity of Jesus. The greater context, both textual and historical are needed in order to derive the correct understanding. This brings me to my second argument, which is the historical argument. The perpetual virginity of Mary was attested as being believed by the original fathers and doctors of the Church such as St. Irenaeus, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, by the traditions of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as by many of the founders of the Protestant reformation, such as Martin Luther of Lutheranism, Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer of Anglicanism, and John Wesley of Methodism, and other reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli. Why does your doctrine outweigh the traditional teachings, understandings, and interpretations of all of these testimonies and arguments throughout history? Was the Church constantly in error for nearly 2000 years from the Resurrection until now? Why then would Christ promise in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."? Has the entire Church been deceived up until the private revelation of Mike Winger? Surely Christ is not a liar.

[@aaronloument5090]

Great response, brother. I do agree with Mike, we need to let the text speak for itself. And I believe a faithful reading of the text itself, without preconceived doctrines, will certainly point one towards an understanding of Mary's perpetual virginity. I'll briefly recount a fascinating teaching by Brant Pitre, which I believe he explores more deeply in his book 'Jesus And The Jewish Roots Of The Virgin Mary'. Brant calls for us to engage in a closer examination to the text of Luke 1:31-34. Verse 31, the angel Gabriel speaks to Mary: "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." Notice how Gabriel never claims that Mary was already pregnant, merely that she would (in the future!) conceive a child. Now, in light of this, why would a betrothed woman (presumably with the intention of having children in the future) react with such incredulity at a message that she (in the future) would conceive a child? Mary responded (v. 34 ESV): "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" It seems apparent that Mary had taken a vow of virginity, effective even in marriage. Now many protestant apologists will claim that no such vow exists in Scripture, however, it is mentioned in Numbers 30:13: "Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void." I hope that with honest and faithful study of the Bible, more of our brothers and sisters will come to the knowledge of the overwhelmingly biblical basis for the Catholic faith. Blessings!

[@AloisFierro]

“Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor. If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up.” ‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭4‬:‭9-10‬ ‭‬‬

[@shnobo9471]

This study was really really good. Thank you so much.

[@nametheunknown_]

Wow, I appreciate the encouragement to preach in the digital synagogues. I think there's something to that, although I do want also to promote in-person engagement because something gets lost without that complete human interaction. Keep it up, brother.

[@briannehill7583]

I've heard ot said that faith isnt believing God can but believing he will. I disagree. I believe faith is believing that whether he does or does not he is right. And you trust his answer. Even when you cant understand it.

[@hotwax9376]

I was raised in a denomination that is very anti-Catholic and rejects the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet I heard them also make the "Jesus' brothers were Joseph's sons from another marriage" claim.

[@courag1]

What I see in the Catholic Church is that Jesus hangs on the cross, like a hunting trophy, the Jewish God they killed. And they have patented and slapped Mary on a lunch box, and here is your god and no, we don't know and can't guarantee you will go to heaven. But, yes we still believe in Jesus only he is only able to forgive you of menial sins, ones which you don't go to hell for anyway. It is our priests who can absolve you of serious sin and we want to know all the details to be able to control you. This makes the priests and the church powerful and the real Jesus incredibly weak. And it is so wrong and so wicked. It keeps masses of people from every knowing the Risen Lord and the True Savior! Truly these are those we are warned about, who hold a form of religion but deny the power of it and from such turn away. To know the real Risen Lord, is being saved in many ways on a daily basis. Of having the spirit in my heart making plain which way I am to go. To have my heart so full of Jesus in my heart, it is an experience of the Glory of God. Of godly sorrow, so that we do repent of sins. Some of the healings I've received have been instant, others have been that God led me to eat some foods and totally leave others alone. Jesus frequently does not heal two people the same way, He treats us as the individuals we are. Truly we have reaches a time when so many foods are toxic. In this day and age I pray for revival, and the Lord told us to fast and pray so I can't fast continually so I did not give up meat for Lent, I gave it up until He comes. But my arthritis went away, my cholesterol became normal and my weight is in the normal range. Grace is a free gift, but yes, it does cost us something. What it costs us is freeing us from sin itself.

[@lindadechow3703]

Thank you so much. I appreciated every word.

[@johnflorio3052]

All the original Protestants - Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Wesley, etc. - all proclaimed the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity and so did their followers. Which Protestant sect changed this and when?

[@dahelmang]

When they started reading Scripture and realized it wasn't in there and was added by mere men.

[@bridgefin]

@@dahelmang In other words, neither Luther nor Calvin were equipped by God to start Protestantism because God equips those whom he calls. Therefore Protestantism is of men and not of God. It exists in opposition to God. Thank you for that insight and now do the right thing and close your doors and return to God.

[@dahelmang]

@@bridgefin let me get this straight. You are saying because these men were not perfect they were not called by God? That's not how Catholics treat the Popes. Protestantism is a return to Scripture after 1500 years of men adding their own traditions. Luther and Calvin etc were not Apostles. Their writings were not inspired. They were used by God to accomplish a task. Luther was a Catholic and wanted to hold onto the traditions he found familiar. Just read the 95 theses. They were written by a Catholic who was just starting to question what he was told. Just like Catholics today with the crazy Francis you have in office now.

[@bridgefin]

@@dahelmang You: You are saying because these men were not perfect they were not called by God? Me: You missed the point completely. Not perfection, but being equipped by God. If God CALLS you to reform his church and start it new he does not let you teach heresy. Jesus promised that the spirit of truth would be with the apostles forever just for this reason. There are many biblical verses which affirm this but here is just one: 2 Timothy 3:17 ESV That the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. So, if God did not equip Luther and Calvin with the truth, then he didn't send them. And if he didn't send them then someone ELSE did or they sent themselves. In any case their effort would be thus proven to be either man made or satanic inspired. BUT maybe Protestantism is God's new choice and Luther and Calvin WERE equipped. THEN you are all in heresy to your founders. In any event modern Protestantism is either proven to be man made or currently in heresy.

[@dahelmang]

@@bridgefin you just took a verse completely out of context. Let me show you. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 The emphasis here is on Scripture equipping the man of God. That's the whole point of the Reformation. You Catholics added to Scripture just like the Pharisees. Treating your traditions as more important than the words of God. As far as Biblical parallels I would point to Josiah and Hezekiah. Josiah brought the people of Israel back to God's Law. Hezekiah tore down the high places where people had been led into paganism. That's what the Reformation was about: going back to the word of God and abandoning pagan additions. If it took more than one generation in the Old Testament why would you expect it to be completed in one generation in the 1500s? You are not using Biblical standards. I don't know where you get these ideas from, but it's not from God's word.

[@zxb995511]

9:45 Yeah, God is qualified to teach about the religion He invented...Such a strange reality that at any moment Jesus would have been barred from teaching at the synagogue...

[@skylee5029]

You mentioned that within our culture it is the norm for children to to deviate from the career path of their parents. I'd like to show where that former tradition still lives and is commonly understood to be this way. I'm now a Tradesman, many of my friends are also Tradesman, many of them also had fathers who were Tradesmen. In the Trades at least, it is still very common for children to be taught their father's trade and grow up doing that. My son is 10 and I take him to all my side jobs so he can learn and already have a means to support himself even before he graduates High School Of my friends, the most skilled ones all grew up working alongside their fathers in their respective trades since they were in Junior High or Highschool.

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

Thanks for shedding light on Luke 4:23-27. I've always wondered what the Zarephath and Naaman examples meant to them

[@gillianwright356]

Though I agree very much with Mike generally, when the people we love won't listen to the gospel we can't just leave them, but keep praying for them as long as we have life and breath!

[@christiandanario]

ahh.. thats quite shocking lol, knowing that Mary was mentioned in Mark 6:3 because Joseph could be dead.. brilliant study brother! :)

[@chillwill361]

Who thought that Catholicism would be fine with such loose lies?

[@bridgefin]

Protestantism originally believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. Either then or now Protestantism is corrupt. Did God change his mind or is Protestantism NOT protected in truth by the Holy Spirit. Man made religions change their doctrines.

[@thomasm8317]

Catholicism is Scriture and Apostolic Tradition. Both come from God and are unchangeable.

[@chillwill361]

Bridgefin I agree with you. That’s why we shouldn’t be Protestants or Catholics or Lutheran. We should be set apart followers of Christ

[@bridgefin]

@@chillwill361 Would you agree that we should be part of the church that Jesus established instead of "churches" established by mere men? How else could we be "set apart" yet follow Christ? Unless we are of one faith the underlying disunity will manifest immediately.

[@chillwill361]

Bridgefin as long as we treat ourselves as the church individually then the church as a whole shouldn’t have a problem. C.S. Lewis describes the church best as a fleet of ship. In order to get to our destination we must not hurt others ship as well as take care of our own ships’ inner workings

[@OckertvdW]

A small five cents to add about the Catholic apologetic about Jesus'brothers and sisters being their alleged cousins. They (a fb dialogue page) seem to identify Mary as described in Mark 6 and Matthew 13 as a similar Mary , also described as the mother of Joses and James, also described elsewhere through the gospels. (Mark 15;40,47 i.e.) I find it a strained possibility because Jesus' brothers seemed to not follow him during the gospel events, whilst Mary, the brother of Joses certainly did. To be somewhat facetious it also makes Mary seem to be a bit of a hillbilly. You know, a "I am Daryll, that is my brother Daryll and my other brother Daryll kind of thing, although I guess it could be that the other Mary was the wife of an unknown Joseph's brother'. Bit too much mental gymnastics imo.

[@Seethi_C]

Who were His brothers, and why don't we know them by name? And why did Jesus give Mary over to John if he had brothers that could take care of her?

[@candyclews4047]

Seethi C - Absolutely. Jewish tradition was very clear about sons looking after their mothers. Hence we know Mary only had one son. Also these “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

[@itsthedude3138]

Because you didn't read the passage.

[@itsthedude3138]

@@candyclews4047 No. Jesus' brother James, at the very least, was a well referenced person of history.

[@candyclews4047]

@@itsthedude3138 The key is that there was more than one 'Mary'. Scripture tells us when the 'Mary' is the mother of Jesus (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) or whether it is a different 'Mary" - as below: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40) What you might find interesting is that the earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions.

[@itsthedude3138]

@@candyclews4047 I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying other explanations of James the bother of Jesus, such as historian Josephus or even James' own writings are not earlier than the Protoevangelium?

[@44thala49]

He has amazing teaching and speaking abilities.

[@Chamelionroses]

Remember when Jesus was neglected at the temple and it took a while for the home alone kid to be noticed?

[@justchilling704]

Jennifer Isaacs ?

[@SusanMorales]

Nice study Pastor Mike 👍🏻 I wonder what Jesus’ responsibilities were as the firstborn and when the father had passed away. I wonder if there was resentment on his brothers end because of this also as is super common for siblings to be so critical of each other. Also I wonder how their reputation as his family was impacted, if they were mocked etc. And I wonder if it was common knowledge that Mary’s pregnancy happened outside of the right time or the idea that another man other than Joseph was the father. Did Joseph lose his reputation as he obeyed God and married Mary? I love the example Jesus sets for us in how to respond in different situations to people. Especially how he taught in synagogues knowing he would not be received by all. I can see his love for all in this, giving all an equal opportunity to believe and repent, including gentiles as you explained in the stories of the widow and the leper. I didn’t know that was the reason they became so angry at his words. :)

[@bellalugosi5853]

Juan Parra He was fully God and fully human. His divinity does not depend on His created, and that goes for Mary, too.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

@@bellalugosi5853 - I don't understand your point. Perhaps there is a typo? Had Jesus had 'brothers' by Mary, they would have been responsible for taking care of their mother at Jesus' death. Instead, Jesus hands her over to John. This would have gone against all of the Jewish culture. Jesus did NOT have brothers and sisters through Mary, and the Early Church held to that.

[@bellalugosi5853]

Rafael Carbone The half-brothers of Jesus abandoned Him at that time, and John was the one there! As for Jewish culture, God is not bound by that. Notice He also instructed Mary to look to John and not the other way around.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

@@bellalugosi5853 - even if the 'brothers' of Jesus abandoned him, where does it say they abandoned their mother? That is essentially what you are saying. Jesus turned Mary over to John because she had no one to care for her since she had no husband and no children.

[@bellalugosi5853]

Rafael Carbone Pure speculation on your part. Prove any of it from Scripture.

[@canabiss8297]

"Where did you get these teachings, Jesus?" You're lookin right at the author!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@ronalddaub5049]

Jesus is lord no man comes to the father except through me call no man Master call no man father on this Earth

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

You are misinterpreting Scripture and taking it out of context. After all, what is the man whose seed you came from to you? Is he not your 'Father'?

[@marye.2018]

This teaching is powerful. Your closing remarks took me by suprise.

[@dahelmang]

Catholics want to say that Joseph had kids with another wife before Mary but their nativity scenes still only have Joseph Mary and Jesus. Where was James when Jesus was born? Wouldn't these children from another marriage have gone with them to Bethlehem and Egypt? Not to mention that it says Joseph didn't lay with Mary until after Jesus was born, which means he did lay with her after Jesus was born. That is perfectly appropriate. Two married people having sex is a wonderful thing. Neither of them was commanded to abstain for the rest of their lives.

[@bridgefin]

You: Not to mention that it says Joseph didn't lay with Mary until after Jesus was born, which means he did lay with her after Jesus was born. Me: No it doesn't. Scripture does work that way consistently.

[@dahelmang]

@@bridgefin for example? If not, then where did Jesus' brothers and sisters come from all of a sudden? You defend your tradition against Scripture. I change my beliefs to match Scripture.

[@bridgefin]

@@dahelmang You asked: for example? Me: Here are three: 1. 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) 2. 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) 3. 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”) You: If not, then where did Jesus' brothers and sisters come from all of a sudden? Me: Not sure, bro but I do know that both then and now the word "brother" can mean any kind of relative, in-law, friend, or associate. One thing we do know is that Scripture puts none of these brothers in the womb of Mary.

[@dahelmang]

@@bridgefin Michal had no children until the day of her death. That was the period of time she was able to have children. After that she would not have the opportunity. Joseph did not lay with Mary until after Jesus was born. That was the period of time he chose not to sleep with his wife. After that there was no reason to refrain. Timothy was to read the Bible publicly until Paul arrived. That was to prepare people for Paul's arrival. The focus in the instruction is on the period of time until Paul arrived so his trip would be more productive. Joseph did not lay with Mary until after Jesus was born. The focus is on the period of time Joseph refrained from having sex with his wife. There was no reason to continue refraining after Jesus was born. If you look in context you will see Jesus will reign until He has put His enemies under His feet, then He will hand the kingdom to the Father. So even though it does not say until after it is actually saying something very similar to Joseph not laying with Mary until after Jesus was born. Seems like the word brother is different from the word relative here: "16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. - Luke 21:16 So when we see both brothers and sisters in this verse: "Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. - Mark 6:3 That certainly seems to say that Joseph and Mary went on having kids. And why not? No one told them not to. The only problem is your tradition demands you ignore the clear implications of the word of God.

[@bridgefin]

@@dahelmang You: Michal had no children until the day of her death. That was the period of time she was able to have children. After that she would not have the opportunity. Me: So when Scripture says that nothing happened UNTIL a point in time it is saying NOTHING about the post period. When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary UTIL the birth of Jesus he is saying nothing about the period after. He is just confirming that Jesus was the result of the virgin birth and those the one prophesized. You: If you look in context you will see Jesus will reign until He has put His enemies under His feet, then He will hand the kingdom to the Father. Me: Except that he is the king ad will reign forever. You: That certainly seems to say that Joseph and Mary went on having kids. And why not? No one told them not to. The only problem is your tradition demands you ignore the clear implications of the word of God. Me: It is you who is oblivious to the implications of Scripture. Focus on Mary's question to Gabriel for a hint. Focus on the meaning of the word "brother" and stop implying that there is only one answer. Stop ignoring those of the early church who lived with Mary and knew there were no other children. And find where Scripture puts a baby into Mary and stop trying to do it yourself. And finally listen to the founders of your faith tradition who disagree with you.

[@petercarr5861]

IT CAN BE FAITH! Over the past 35 years I've seen my faith change radically, like day and night. The faith in my early years produced very little fruit. Today I see tangible results, everyday. I don't live in the times of the apostles, I promise :-) One of the key factors is stand on God's word no matter what you experience, and never run with emotions or thoughts that go against the word. Believe God, completely.

[@penguinman9837]

Wonderful message! Thank you!

[@annanimus3943]

How could Mary not believe in him? She knew it was a virgin birth and she prodded him to turn the water to wine.

[@snippletrap]

This is a good question. It may be that she did believe, but was embarrassed or afraid.

[@dominicpereira6006]

Even Joseph knew who Jesus was.

[@elizabethshaw7472]

I think it's entirely possible that Mary believed who Jesus was but didn't believe He was behaving appropriately for the Messiah. Even though rationally she should know she doesn't make that decision, human's aren't always rational. I sure know I'm not.

[@chelseabradham3889]

The term being familial isn't the issue, the issue is that "brothers" isn't the only "family" the original Greek can refer to and for cultural reasons, cousins, which is another possibility, is just as, if not more likely.

[@benedektoth2646]

With stating that the etymology of a word and the meaning of it is not directly connected, this is still considerable: The word adelphós is thought to be inherited from a Proto-Indo-European word meaning something like 'same womb', and in Greek to be equivalent with ha- ('same, one') + delphús ('womb').

[@aprilstark8887]

Thank you!

[@Kyle-yw2hw]

I would love to know where your church is, where can we come hear you preach

[@anthonybardsley4985]

I think its clear from that passage that jesus mother had children.very well explained.

[@kathleennorton7913]

We can pray that God changes the one we care about's heart. By the power of The Holy Spirit God is well able to change a person's heart.

[@livewireOrourke]

43:36 Sounds like me (or my wife) whenever we don't want to do something. We'll come up with one excuse followed by another once the first excuse is countered, lol.

[@Strutingeagle]

The scholars have rejected the portion of the New Testament pertaining to the virgin birth as non-inspired. They show that New Testament writers were operating off an incorrect translation of a passage in the Old Testament. The Old Testament passage spoke of a young woman not a virgin and this passage was not about Jesus at all. The fact they got the passage in the Old Testament wrong speaks volumes about the credibility, historicity, and puts the obvious contradictions between the gospels in a non inspired light.

[@anatolia613]

I'm so grateful for your channel, it's so insightful and thorough. Thank you!

[@bridgefin]

And wrong. His views are heretical to the Reformers. So Protestantism doesn't know what it believes. All men to themselves and you wonder where relativism came from?

[@leavesnpetals]

In the Catholic Church we pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters, that they too may come to know the fullness of the faith. In the Protestant Church they proclaim that Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon and I rarely hear a prayer for them. Never referred to as brother and sisters in Christ. Criticizing the child molestation among priests when it's been shown that in their Protestant churches the same abuse is worse! I can see the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Catholic Church in this video. It is strongly biased by the Protestant "tradition". And seems to forget that for the first 1500+ years it was The Church (together with the Orthodox Church). Were those years full of false Christians? Did they die in vain when they were martyred? Had Jesus abandoned his Church for over 1500 years and allowed the gates of hell to prevail against it? Were the Catholic Bishops that through the Holy Spirit decided which books went into the New Testament inspired, or misled by the tradition they used? Or should we better accept Luther, trying to have the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation removed from the Canon? Wasn't that a good sign that perhaps the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding Him? When exactly will people search without bias for the Truth? Study the History of the Church without bias for the Truth? Or is continued listening to misinformation on the Catholic Church necessary for the Protestant Church to continue to grow and thrive even into more denominations at the expense of Truth a necessity to promote falsehood? I really would like an honest answer.

[@HueyBob24]

I think the first thing you should look up is when the Orthodox Church actually left, and why. This has nothing to do with Protestants because we didn’t exist yet.

[@leavesnpetals]

@@HueyBob24 - when I say catholic I do not mean necessarily Roman Catholic. Catholic means universal. I attend an Orthodox Church. So I'm quite familiar with the schism over the Bishop of Rome's rulership. And you are correct, Protestants didn't even exist then. So where was the Church? It certainly didn't cease to exist between the 1st and the 16th centuries. If I were you, this would definitely make me wonder. Because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Protestants couldn't have restored it by stripping away all the doctrines of the Early Church..

[@HueyBob24]

leavesnpetals I’ll admit I don’t know much at all about the Orthodox Church, nor do I think that we tried to wipe away 1500 years of previous theology. We agree on most, and we can argue bias for an eternity, we are still family, and I do not include those that are heretical and preach a different Jesus. So I’ll ask then, why would you feel it is so important to believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, when it doesn’t say that in the Bible Matt 1:25, it also does not speak of this in the Old Testament. As you say we are steeped in our Protestant tradition, but I don’t see what you mean by tradition, when I only follow the Bible. As Jesus taught against the traditions of the Pharisees and the laws made up by man and not God. I would appreciate an honest assessment of my beliefs, and I’m sorry if I came across snarky.

[@HueyBob24]

leavesnpetals I do pray for Catholics, by which I should just say Roman Catholicism, my best friend is one, but trying to get any dialog out of her is impossible. My argument with Rome and the abuse issue is that by allowing marriage much of the sexual immorality would not exist, it exists in our church as well, as it is everywhere in this fallen world, but when the top guy who says he speaks for God does nothing and sweeps it under the rug , it’s not wrong for everyone to be angry., and want justice for those that were abused. I also believe that God is shaking the whole church body and cleaning house, and bringing all these things into the light.

[@leavesnpetals]

@@HueyBob24 = I agree with everything you write. Except that the Pope finally did acknowledge the problem, make restitution (though no amount of money compensates for the damage that has been perpetrated by molestation). And you are correct, sadly in this fallen world the problem is not catholic, alone. The Protestant Church has been equally guilty. Although I don't believe it's because of vows of celibacy as much as it is out of a lack of respect for another person and for God. More often than not they are males preying on young boys, and how do we address this issue? But I believe we are on the same page. God bless you Heather.

[@MrRyjax99]

message received :) thank you

[@IsmaelLovecraft]

a possible reason for Joseph's absence: Joseph didn't believe, even more so than his other sons, in Jesus'' Ministry.

[@bridgefin]

Baloney.

[@cooperroberts2162]

22:00 Family 45:22 Marian

[@rockstar696]

"..Isn't this THE son of Mary?" THE not A? Hmmmm Also, Mark says the names of both James' fathers as Zeebadee and Alphius. IF Mary did have children after Jesus, why did Jesus give His mother to John at the Cross instead of his younger sibling - if he had any - take her?

[@ColinPopoviciu]

Cody Skinner Did "David the son of jesse" have other siblings? Your argument is laughable

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

@@ColinPopoviciu - I don't understand your implication. Anyone who does a thorough and UNBIASED study of the Bible along with Jewish customs and Christian history will come to the realization that Jesus did not have uterine brothers or sisters. If you'd like, I can give you the reasons why. Imagine siblings that would be the 'brothers of God'. Doesn't that alone give you pause?

[@tookie36]

16:40 5 year old Jesus symbolizes Israel’s walk with Yahweh and Joseph is the bearer of the NT and old Jesus is the new covenant. It’s not that Jesus changed but how we perceive our walk with God. Parables are fun and the early Christian’s were inspired

[@dominicpereira6006]

Who are the sisters of Jesus

[@bridgefin]

Temple vs Synagogue. In the Temple they do worship where priests do their thing with sacrifices, and in the synagogue they gather together and preach and study. We have this today. The Temple is the catholic church where there is a memorial sacrifice and worship. In the Protestant church we have a gathering and studying and preaching.

[@geoffjs]

Agreed, so there is no such thing as a Protestant “church” if it doesn’t conduct proper worship Jn 6 51-58, so they attend synagogue for prayer and teaching, but no worship

[@bridgefin]

@@geoffjs I agree There is one Christian church and it was established by God. Anything else is a creation of sinners in opposition to God and his only church.

[@michelledurfee2756]

According to Mark, was Jesus’ mother, Mary, among the family that thought he was crazy? How could that be if she was visited by the angel and knew of and accepted the miraculous conception and knew he was the son of God?

[@waynehampson9569]

Mary definitely wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born. Think about basic human anatomy.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

Wayne Hampson - Think of the power of God. You are looking at this through mans' eyes. Since when does basic human anatomy form a child without having the male sperm penetrating the female egg? Yet it happened in Jesus' case. No sperm, a miraculous conception.

[@tobyc.crain-saltrhyme1563]

I know I'm late to the party, but in regards to the perpetual virginity of Mary, I recently read this passage, and it quickly debunks that idea. This passage (Matthew 1:24-25) clearly states that Joseph DID consummate his marriage to Mary, just not "until" Jesus was born: "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." -Matthew 1:24-25 NIV

[@bridgefin]

No it doesn't. You are forcing a meaning on the word "until" that Scripture does not recognize.

[@tobyc.crain-saltrhyme1563]

@@bridgefin Regardless of what we may have been taught, it's important to try and cast off those things so that we can look at Scripture objectively. Too often we read Scripture with preconceptions, and it's difficult to connect all the pieces. We know that Jesus had other brothers and sisters (John 7:2-5, John 2:12, Matthew 13:55-56, Galatians 1:19), and we're equally confident they weren't all conceived by the Holy Spirit. So, it seems most reasonable that Joseph and Mary most certainly had naturally-born children at some point after Jesus'. If we're thinking biblically, then my statements stand on their own merit. If we choose to hold a different position, then we must ignore those parts of the Bible that contradict us.

[@bridgefin]

@@tobyc.crain-saltrhyme1563 You: We know that Jesus had other brothers and sisters Me: Correct and any good biblical concordance will let you know that the words "brother" and "sister" can relate to almost any human being on the planet. So that Jesus had brothers means nothing related to Mary unless Scripture puts those brothers and sisters in her womb. And it doesn't do that as you know. You: Too often we read Scripture with preconceptions, and it's difficult to connect all the pieces. Me: You have nicely demonstrated how that can happen. You: So, it seems most reasonable that Joseph and Mary most certainly had naturally-born children at some point after Jesus'. Me: It was not considered reasonable at all for 16 centuries of Christianity. Even Luther and Calvin strongly defended Mary's perpetual virginity. And you mentioned the Holy Spirit. Funny but you do that as you disrespect him. If he allowed people to believe the wrong thing for 16 centuries then he is ineffective as the spirit of truth at best and incompetent at worst. You: If we choose to hold a different position, then we must ignore those parts of the Bible that contradict us. Me: I hold to the position that the Holy Spirit sides with and which is therefore the proper way to interpret Scripture.

[@geoffjs]

@@tobyc.crain-saltrhyme1563the word “until” is ambiguous and does not imply that they consummated the marriage. Eg I never smoked until I died! Brothers and sisters could have been cousins as there is no Aramaic word for cousin. Equally, they could have been children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Read what the Early Church fathers wrote about what became the Marian dogmas, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virgin, Mother of God and the Assumption all of which can be rationally explained Jesus, from the cross gave His mother to John for protection which would not have been necessary if she’d had other children

[@randycarson9812]

@@tobyc.crain-saltrhyme1563 Nope. And I'm going to use scripture and the actual meaning of the Aramaic and Greek to explain. *Until.* The word "until" in Matthew 1:25 does not prove that Mary had other children because "until" does not require a change from what was the case to something different. For example, Paul wrote to Timothy, “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” (1 Tim 4:13) Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul arrives? Of course not. Timothy did not stop teaching, and Mary did not lose her virginity. The word "until" is ambiguous, and Mt 1:25 is of no value in proving that Mary had other children. *Firstborn.* Under the law, the title or designation of “firstborn” was given not because there was a “secondborn” but because that child was the first to “open” his mother’s womb. This was true regardless of whether his mother would ever have other children or not. In other words, the term "firstborn" was used not only to refer to the eldest of several but also to a male who was an only child. Jesus was Mary’s firstborn AND her only child. *Brothers & Sisters.* In scripture, we cannot assume that the term "brothers" or "sisters" always implies a shared mother. For instance, Abram and Lot are called "brothers" even though Abram was Lot’s uncle (cf. Gen 12:5). Similarly, in the New Testament, John the Baptist confronts Herod, who had married Herodias, the wife of Herod’s "brother" Philip. Despite being called "brothers," Herod and Philip did not share the same mother, as their father had different wives. These examples demonstrate that the term "brothers" in scripture does not necessarily indicate that the individuals share the same mother. This is relevant because no scripture verse states that anyone other than Jesus came from Mary's womb. Every instance where scripture mentions a "brother" or "brothers and sisters" of Jesus connects them to Him but NEVER to Mary, indicating they were not her biological children. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions or want more information. Thanks.

[@natenation8977]

is Mark 6 and Luke 4 supposed to be the same account? Mark 6 has the disciples following him, but in Luke 4 they don't quite appear to be part of his ministry yet. How is this understood or resolved?

[@johnnonamegibbon3580]

What is your view on the fact that no one mentioned the Gospels until after the 2nd century? And that the epistles of Paul aren't mentioned by anyone until Marcion "Finds them" according to Tertullian. Or that Jerome says the "apostles believed Jesus was a spirit" meaning the original Christians were not exactly like later European Christians. These are all things that cause me to have doubts. As it implies our current views are not as solid as we think.

[@shnobo9471]

I have been blocked in the past people twist things and everything 😅 it is sad really.

[@RunnyBabbitMom]

I can’t get this to load under the listen link in the BibleThinker app and if I do the video my teen with A.D.D will watch the video and not get anything out of it and the only way for us all to hear it well enough is to mirror it to the television. Edit: sorry for all the information but I know there are people who would just tell me to watch the video or flip my phone over.

[@RunnyBabbitMom]

@Mike Winger I don’t understand why Mary would think Jesus was insane when she knew he is the son of God and would be the savior of his people.

[@patricialauriello3805]

Why do you keep trashing Catholicism? It's NOT going away and it has been around a lot longer then the protestant faith. Catholics don't trash you.

[@JesusWept1999]

He doesn't trash it. He speaks the truth about your cult. And protestantism is just going off GODs word for instruction. I mean bro... look at the long line of popes. You can't possibly think their the vicors of Christ. Theirs no such thing. Idolatry is a very serious matter. Repent before it's to late.

[@bridgefin]

@@JesusWept1999 Jesus weeps over Mike's ignorance of Jesus' only church and over the fact that Mike constantly attacks him by attacking his church. You, too, misunderstand I see. Blame that on your false teachers.

[@geoffjs]

@@JesusWept1999the fruit of heretical Protestantism

[@randycarson9812]

@@JesusWept1999 Let's examine the scriptures to see what is true. When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17) Jesus, the Good Shepherd, declared, "There shall be one flock, one shepherd." (cf. John 10:16) After His resurrection, Jesus instructed Peter to "take care of" and "feed" the sheep of His flock (cf. John 21:15-17). *One who acts as a substitute or agent for someone in a higher position is known as a “vicar”. Jesus is in heaven; Peter was the first vicar of Christ on earth.* And here's the best part: Because Jesus is an eternal king whose reign will never end, the office of His vicar on earth has continued and will continue until He comes again. Peter and his successors, the Popes of the Catholic Church have continued serving in this office, ensuring continuity in leadership and the preservation of Christ's authority. I hope this helps.

[@stewartgray4301]

Mike. Thank you for highlighting why Jesus stopped reading Isaiah 61 just where He did. I have sometimes wondered about that. Now, it seems so clear and obvious. God bless your good work in His name. Amen.

[@rosehammer9482]

The Holy Spirit came on Jesus at his Baptism. I think of Isaiah 11 whenever I read Mark 6:1-3

[@ashleighcartwright5186]

If Mary was forever a virgin does that make James a son of God? Was James born of another woman with Joseph as father? Please can someone get back to me

[@andregarcia2781]

James was the cousin of Jesus since the word used for brother in the original bible text was the same as saying family member.If you look up the family tree of Jesus and that of Joseph and Mary you will find out how Jesus was the only child of Mary

[@ashleighcartwright5186]

@@andregarcia2781 I have done a lot of research, Evidence weighs more in the direction of James being a son of Joseph. Thank you for your input, much appreciated. I've been listening to Mike now for a year solidly, catching up on his content and the word of God. As a protestant born in the UK with both Jewish and crusader ancestry I find Mike's approach and teachings to be very accurate

[@justchilling704]

Ashleigh Cartwright Roman Catholics just be delusional sometimes 🤷🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️

[@DannieDecent]

Great video

[@randycarson9812]

*MARK 6:3: BROTHERS OF JESUS, BUT NOT SONS OF MARY* _You keep using that verse. I don't think it means what you think it means._ Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3) It seems odd, but no verse of scripture ever called anyone a son or daughter of Mary except Jesus. And for good reason: in scripture, we cannot assume that the term "brothers" or "sisters" always implies a shared mother. For instance, Abram and Lot are called "brothers" even though Abram was Lot’s uncle (cf. Gen 12:5). Similarly, in the New Testament, John the Baptist confronts Herod, who had married Herodias, the wife of Herod’s "brother" Philip. Despite being called "brothers," Herod and Philip did not share the same mother, as their father had different wives. These examples demonstrate that the term "brothers" in scripture does not necessarily indicate that the individuals share the same mother. This is relevant because no scripture verse states that anyone other than Jesus came from Mary's womb. Every instance where scripture mentions a "brother" or "brothers and sisters" of Jesus connects them to Him but NEVER to Mary, indicating they were not her biological children. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions or want more information. Thanks.

[@sundayweiss7658]

Mixing God and politics is not rendering unto God what is Gods and unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s.

[@andrewstone3502]

Its almost like the message Jesus was saying is that atonement is limited and many wont be saved....

[@darrylsturgis7389]

Atonement isn’t limited, but it is conditional, and many won’t be saved.

[@andrewstone3502]

@@darrylsturgis7389 so you are saying jesus's will has failed because his sacrafice is conditional to the will of man. That seems to be at odds with the Bible and the sovereign power of God.

[@andrewstone3502]

@@darrylsturgis7389 also applying a conditional standard limits atonement. So none who have never heard or lived before Jesus can not be saved.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

@@darrylsturgis7389 - therefore are we to suppose that the children that were born and died as children in the Old Testament are in hell? Is your God that cruel?

[@darrylsturgis7389]

Christ suffered the cross as a substitute for man’s sin. That is the atonement as I understand it. It’s from God’s plan fulfilled through the works of His Son. It is only through Christ’s work that we are saved. The conditional part is that we have to acknowledge that work and accept Christ as our savior. It is through Christ works and not by my works that I am saved. Many won’t accept Him and won’t be saved.

[@AD-en5dq]

I would sooner be a open heart surgeon than have to trouble shoot a game finding a needle in a needle stack

[@dennyfromcharlestonsc3325]

He was the oldest son of the carpenter, therefore He had to follow His father's trade.

[@Seethi_C]

Can you provide examples of Christian writers throughout history that held to your view of this issue?

[@andrewstone3502]

St Augustine. John Calvin. John Owens. RC Sproul. James White

[@Seethi_C]

@@andrewstone3502 When did Augustine claim that Mary had other children? Everyone else here is after the Reformation (aka, only the later fourth Christian history).

[@andrewstone3502]

@@Seethi_C Which origin and all the church father who denied the apocryphal texts Augustine's text never had nor any manuscript contained the idea Mary was always a virgin. Origen did hold to the position that Mary was a perpetual virgin per his homily on Luke 7:4

[@andrewstone3502]

@@Seethi_C nobody believed the idea of Mary being perpetually a virgin until Protoevangelium of James. Which is like other forgeries trying to capitalize on an apostle

[@andrewstone3502]

Like most Catholic works it was added and change to fit the needs of the church. Hats books actions and beliefs to force doctrines that control the freedom of believers. Peter denied christ 3 times.... Yet they say Christ built his church on only him. And he answered to the apostle James...please pray and ask god for guidance then read your Bible Sir.

[@CynHicks]

At least some of what is accepted doctrine is informed by the disputed books though right?

[@CynHicks]

@@veritasmuy2407 I understand there are contradictions but that wasn't the question. Thank you for answering though. Probably the only answer I'll get. Lol

[@danielledaniels9848]

Couldn't be bothered to look it up! 🤣😂🤣😂

[@BeniaminZaboj]

You are video game designer? What game you did already?

[@suzannelalonde6486]

Great ! Great ! Great !

[@bjh13us]

Thank you for being accurate when representing the Catholic position even though you disagree with it.

[@bellalugosi5853]

TreKater joh 17 17 A cult will always promote the cult. I’ll go to God’s Word and ask it’s author, the Holy Spirit for understanding.

[@bellalugosi5853]

TreKater joh 17 17 I know it makes Catholics feel superior to think so, but there are far less non-Catholic denominations than the RCC says, and far less disagreement on the doctrines central to salvation. Truth divides, haven’t you heard?

[@pureone8350]

@@bellalugosi5853 True. I wonder why they grossly exaggerate the numbers. Plus, many of the churches placed under "Protestant" don't even follow Sola Scriptura.

[@bellalugosi5853]

Daniel Ntoto It’s an obvious lie, but so is 98% of RCC teaching.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

@@bellalugosi5853 - Individual interpretation. Which makes it appear the Holy Spirit has a different exegesis for each person. God is not a God of confusion. The chaos of over 31,000 denominations (and who knows how many in them ''hear' the voice of God differently than the denomination they are a part of) should prove that your interpretation is not necessarily led by the Holy Spirit. Be careful. I've seen some get really far off thinking they are hearing the voice of God. The devil transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive. Be careful my sister. You are walking on thin ice.

[@johnmartin1335]

Mike cannot prove Mary had other children by referring to Jesus's brothers in the context of the family. For brothers can mean fellow believers or cousins in familial terms as well. Mike proposes a false dichotomy where he says do we go with tradition or what the scriptures teach. For Mike has not demonstrated Jesus had biological brothers, but only provides soft rhetorical arguments which hint at one conclusion, rather than another conclusion. Also Mike himself falls into a fallacy of introducing a false oral tradition of Jesus having biological brothers which is not found in the scriptures. Or Mike misreads several texts and ignores the oral tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Mike seems to want to replace the true Catholic faith with his own version of Mike's faith. I trust the Christ who controls the 2000 years of church history which is thoroughly catholic, rather than the fallible musings of a private interpreter of the sacred text.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

John Martin - Amen! Well put and very accurate comment.

[@snippletrap]

The plain reading of the text is that they are Jesus' brothers. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the text doesn't mean what it says. I don't see much proof in the text that they are cousins, or that Mary was perpetually a virgin. Maybe there is evidence elsewhere, but it's simply not in the Bible.

[@johnmartin1335]

@@snippletrap Protestants like Mike fail to embrace the necessary consequent ambiguity within the scriptural text that follows from scripture alone. The text can be read in more than one way when the text is taken away from the church that wrote it and the tradition that was delivered from Christ and the apostles. Mikes presentation only further highlights the many weaknesses in the scripture alone doctrine of evangelical Protestantism. By Protestants ignoring the tradition that Mary remained a virgin, there is no proof texts for Mary as remaining a virgin or not. The protestants know this so they back up their arguments with empty rhetoric to sway the believers into the protestant position. The Protestants have no proof for their contention that Mary had other children.

[@johnmartin1335]

@Splat the roadkill Cat The series is not required. God can make and exception to the rule in the mother of Jesus.

[@kayress]

John Martin can you please point out to me in scripture where you would pray the rosary and revere Mary, in which we pray to her to intercede our prayers to God?

[@RR-gi9vo]

So what was Mary doing at this point. 🤔

[@RR-gi9vo]

@@veritasmuy2407 oh yes, Jesus asked that he look after her. Thank you.

[@davidmcgowan7398]

HEARD IT

[@dorothysittler7370]

Apparently Joseph and Jesus were engineers in their field of carpentry They were not loewly type carpentry people.

[@Lillaloppan]

Thank you so very much 😊❤!

[@mckster56]

Ty for your teachings

[@smodval6793]

There is no virgin birth narrative in the gospel of Matthew! During the Second Temple Period, the betrothal (kiddushin) came first, which was followed a year later by the nisu'in (nuptials), when the husband (et al) "carries" his wife from her father's house and brings her to the home that he's prepared for her. (Cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins). I submit that the use of συνελθεῖν (came together) in Matthew 1:18 refers to the nisu'in (nuptials), when the husband and wife publicly "come together" (συνέρχομαι) as a couple and the ketubah (marriage contract) is read aloud. The Church assumes that the Greek word συνέρχομαι alludes to the couple "coming together" in a sexual union. Yet, the word συνέρχομαι is used of Yeshu "coming together" with his disciples (Acts 1:6) and it's used of Cornelius' kinsmen and near friends "coming together" (Acts 10:24-27) and it's used of Paul and the chief of the Jews "coming together" (Acts 28:17), etc. In short, the word συνέρχομαι needn't be interpreted as "coming together" in a sexual union. Prior to the 3rd century C.E., Jewish law (halakah) held that a man obtained a wife by 1. paying money (kessef), 2. a written declaration of intent (shetar), and 3. sexual intercourse (bi'ah) - Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. (See also, "The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" by Maurice Lamm, pp. 143f). It was the custom among the plebeian class of Jews to have coitus (bi'ah) as part of their betrothal (kiddushin). Why? Aside from tradition, it was only logical for the groom to ensure that his wife was indeed a virgin, rather than pay the kessef (money) and the mohar (dowry of 200 zuzim for a virgin) and scrape together the funds to pay for the wedding feast, only to find out at the nisu'in (nuptials) that his wife wasn't a virgin. Lamm writes (ibid., p. 146), "After the man has addressed the marriage formula to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting the betrothal (kiddushin) through intercourse (bi'ah). The Sages considered this to be gross, virtually an act of prostitution (πορνεία), and in the third century Rav decreed flogging for those who chose this manner of betrothal. Nonetheless, if the marriage was performed in this way it was legally valid. Only kessef is performed today; both intercourse and contract as forms of betrothal are obsolete." The account in Matthew is simply stating that Miriam was found to be pregnant by Yosef prior to their "coming together" at the nuptials (nisu'in). As for the role played by HaShem's Spirit in the conception, proto-Rabbinic Judaism teaches the following: "There are three partners in man ... his father supplies the ... substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the ... substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. HaShem gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, HaShem takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them" - Niddah 31a; cf. She'iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10). In short, HaShem's Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child! We are all the literal Offspring of OUR Heavenly Father. Why did Yosef want to secretly divorce Miriam? Because he wanted to save her from the gossips among the patrician class of Jews, who regarded the combination of kessef (money) and bi'ah (coitus) to effect the kiddushin (betrothal) as being tantamount to prostitution (πορνεία). Nevertheless, Yosef was reminded in a dream that he'd followed the established halakah (religio-legal ruling), so there was no need to be ashamed. That being said, later in Yeshu's life, certain Judeans said to him, "We be not born of fornication (πορνεία); we have one Father ... HaShem" (John 8:41). Obviously, this was meant to be a taunting jab at the circumstances of Yeshu's conception during his parents' kiddushin (betrothal), which these particular Judeans regarded as being essentially an act of prostitution (πορνεία). How did Yeshu's followers combat this vituperation? They simply pointed to Isaiah 7:14, as a halakhic proof text that conceiving a child as part of the betrothal phase was perfectly acceptable, because the text reads that a "newlywed" (עַלְמָה - cf. Jastrow's dictionary) will conceive a child, who, like each and every child, will have a soul that is a portion of the Deity from above (chelek Elokim mima'al). HaShem is with and within all of us! Yeshu's Jewish followers had no intention of using Isaiah 7:14 as a means to espouse their belief in parthenogenesis. They'd have regarded the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Miriam's Immaculate Conception to be patently absurd!

[@smodval6793]

@Sterling Crowne - I'm fully aware of what your Xtian dogma has to say on the matter. It's amazing what people can come up with once they opt to return to their pagan roots.

[@smodval6793]

@Sterling Crowne - Read W.D. Davies, "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology." He has a has an entire chapter on the Second Adam. You won't be disappointed.

[@smodval6793]

@Sterling Crowne - Then I'll ignore you just as you ignored me.

[@smodval6793]

@Sterling Crowne - AGAIN, your opinion means nothing because you don't want to place the material in question back into its proper historical, linguistic, and cultural context. Instead you're reading the texts through the eyes of church theology which wasn't even fully developed until hundreds upon hundreds of years after the historical man and his immediate followers died. You're projecting your beliefs into the texts, rather than reading them through the eyes of the original authors and their redactors!

[@smodval6793]

@Sterling Crowne - What this passage is speaking about in the proto-Rabbinic concept of the Evil Inclination (Heb. Yetzer HaRa) and the Good Impulse (Heb. Yetzer HaTov). The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "ruach," which means "wind." One of the functions of "wind" is aeolian erosion whereby the wind removes the loose particles of earth and thereby reveals what hitherto had been hidden beneath them. In this sense, the word "ruach" means an agent of revelation. An unclean spirit is simply a manifestation of an unclean revelation within the human psyche that is rooted in one's Evil Imagination (Yetzer HaRa). The Evil Inclination isn't "evil" in and of itself, because without it we wouldn't engage in business, build a home, marry or have children. It's merely our Survival Instinct and Sex Drive, which are good things, but they can quickly become evil when we allow our "fleshly" selfish urges to run amok. We're born with the Evil Inclination switched on. It's what Freud call the "Id" and what the Apostle Paul called the "sarx" (flesh) and "the old man." (See, "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology" by W.D. Davies, pp. 17f). Our Good Impulse (Yetzer HaTov) only comes online when we reach the age of accountability and make a choice to follow a moral code. Freud called this Good Impulse the "Super-Ego" and the Apostle Paul called it the "pneuma" (lit. spirit; wind) and "the new [man]," because, if you're a Jew, the Good Impulse is 12 to 13 years younger than the Evil Inclination. In other words, when a Jewish boy/girl becomes a son/daughter of the Mitzvot, they are "born again," because their Good Imagination comes online and begins the work of taming the Evil Imagination and turns it into a servant of OUR Heavenly Father. Rami bar Abba says like this: What is the meaning of that which is written: "There was a little city and few men in it, and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a man poor and wise, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man" (Ecclesiastes 9:14-15)? "A little city," this is referring to the body; "and few men in it," this is referring to the limbs; "and there came a great king against it and besieged it," this is referring to the Evil Inclination; "and built great bulwarks against it," these are sins. The Gemara expounds on the next section of the verse: "Now there was found in it a man poor and wise," this is referring to the Good Inclination; "and he by his wisdom delivered the city," this is referring to repentance and good deeds that are caused by the Good Inclination. "Yet no man remembered that same poor man" means that when the Evil Inclination overcomes the Good Inclination no one remembers the Good Inclination. - Nedarim 32b. We're supposed to use our Good Impulse to tame our Evil Inclination and turn it into a servant of HaShem. Sadly, many people don't succeed in doing this and end up leading a life devoted to heeding the whims of their own Evil Inclination. Shim'on ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) says like this, "Satan, the Evil Inclination, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence. He is the Satan who seduces people and then accuses them, as it is written: "So the Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with vile sores" (Job 2:7). He is also the Evil Inclination, as it is written there: "The impulse of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously" (Genesis 6:5); and it is written here: "Only upon himself do not put forth your hand" (Job 1:12). The verbal analogy between the various uses of the word "only" teaches that the Evil Inclination is to be identified with the Satan. He is also the Angel of Death, as it is written: "Only spare his life" (Job 2:6); apparently, Job’s life depends upon him, the Satan, and accordingly, the Satan must also be the Angel of Death. - Bava Batra 16a. When Yeshua went into the wilderness to be tempted by HaSatan ... what do you think he was being tempted by? The "Celestial Satan"...? The Prosecuting Attorney in HaShem's Heavenly Court, who stands before the Throne of HaShem and accuses the brethren day and night? Yeshua was fasting in order to tame his own Evil Imagination (Yetzer HaRa). Do you really think that HaShem, the Infinite One, has a Throne in one specific location within the Multiverse or our own universe? Where is HaShem's Throne and Heavenly Court if not within you? Where is the Rulership of HaShem (Malchut Shamayim) if not within you? Where is HaSatan, the Evil Inclination, if not within you? Peter says like this, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary (antidikos), the false accuser (diabolos), as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished *in your brethren* that are in the world" (1 Peter 5:8-9). The only unclean spirit you need concern yourself with is the unclean revelations that come from your own Evil Imagination. If you're going to follow Yeshua's gospel, then "Turn to HaShem in repentance! Because the Rulership of HaShem is a present reality!" Unlike Xtianity, Jews don't believe that "original sin," which Augustine stated was concupiscence, is a sexually transmitted and genetically inherited disorder that separates all mankind from the Deity. If one has to accept the blood atonement of your version of "Jesus" and profess him to be their Deity and Savior in order to be "born again," then why was Yeshu surprised that the historical man, Nakdimon ben Gurion, didn't know what should've been common knowledge to a teacher of Klal Yisrael? "Except a man be born of water [the amniotic fluid of the womb] and of the [HaShem's] Spirit, he cannot enter into the Rulership of HaShem. That which is born of the flesh [Evil Imagination] is flesh [the Evil Inclination]; and that which is born of the spirit [Good Imagination] is spirit [the Good Impulse]. Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again." As for the role played by HaShem's Spirit in the conception, proto-Rabbinic Judaism teaches the following: "There are three partners in man ... his father supplies the ... substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the ... substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. HaShem gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, HaShem takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them" - Niddah 31a; cf. She'iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10). I know you don't want to place this back into it's proper historical, linguistic, and cultural context. I know you believe that only Jesus's blood can atone for you sins. I know you believe in the Virgin Birth (and maybe even the Immaculation Conception). You probably think I'm some Christi-killing, benighted Jew, who's going to burn in the Lake of Fire with your Xtian version of Satan and his demons for all eternity. Just going believing that. I'm not out to convert you away from your belief-system.

[@sylviah1333]

Mary is Ever-Virgin even in the Orthodox religion

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

Sylvia H - Amen!

[@justchilling704]

Sylvia H That’s bc Orthodox and Roman Catholicism are the same thing the only dispute, being the authority of the Papacy or Pope?i mean correct me if I’m wrong.