The Virgin Mary Was NOT a Virgin Forever

Рет қаралды 7,712

Күн бұрын

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was a virgin her entire life. They also believe that she was born without original sin and that she never sinned her entire life. None of this is true. Its a complete load of rubbish. Mary was a virgin but she did not always stay a virgin. But this is a good topic to bring up with a Roman Catholic or with someone in the Orthodox church because if you can show them that the teaching of their church is wrong then you can get them to start questioning the other things their church is teaching. This could be the crack that breaches the dam can causes them to completely question and maybe even leave the Roman catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus but she did not remain a virgin.

Пікірлер: 1 200

@samuelflores1419 17 күн бұрын

When a church says that there is no salvation outside of them, RED FLAG!

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."😁😁

@MultiSky7 17 күн бұрын

@@bibleman8010 Which is NOT the RCC. It is the body of Christians - followers and believers in Jesus Christ, that's THE Church, not the man made institution that snatched that "title" for themselves.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

What Holy Scripture has said Christ's Church would be: 😊😊 How Christ's Church has conformed to Holy Scripture: It will be founded by GOD: Psalms 127:1, Matthew 16:18 It was founded by GOD. It will be highly visible: Isaiah 2:2, Matthew 5:14 It is highly visible. It will have the authority: Matthew 18:15-18, John 20:21-22 It has the authority given to it by Jesus Christ. It will have a Father Figure: Isaiah 22:20-25 It has a Father Figure, as GOD always had for His people. It will be a Theocracy and not a Democracy: Eph 5:23-24 It is a Theocracy. It is governed from the top down. The blueprint for it is described in the book of Acts. It is blueprinted in the book of Acts. It will have priests, deacons, Bishops: Acts 6:1-6,14:22,20:28 It always has had priests, deacons, and Bishops. It will have Apostolic Succession: Psalm 109:8, Acts 1:20-26 It has Apostolic Succession. It will offer sacrifice every day in every place: Malachi 1:11 It does offer sacrifice every day in every place. It will be guided by the Holy Spirit: John 14:16-17, 16:12-13 It is guided by the Holy Spirit: Acts 15:28, Rev 2:7 Truths of GOD to be revealed to it over time: John 16:12-13 Truths of GOD have been revealed to it over time: Eph 3:10 It will be the Pillar and Foundation of Truth: 1Timothy 3:15 It is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. It will be the guardian of truth: 2Timothy 1:13-14 It has been the guardian of truth for almost 2000 years. It will uphold Apostolic Tradition: 2Thessalonians 2:15 It upholds Apostolic Tradition. It will have Church councils: Proverbs 11:14, Acts 15:1-29 It holds periodic Church councils: Acts 15:1-29 It will be attacked from the inside: John 6:70 It has been attacked from the inside. It will be attacked from the outside: Matthew 5:10-12, 10:22 It has been attacked from the outside. All who fight against it shall be confounded: Isaiah 41:11 37,000+ Protestant sects is proof that they are confounded. It will be found in every century: Ephesians 3:21 It is found in every century from the day Christ founded it. It will last forever: Isa 41:10-11, 54:17, 59:21, Matt 28:20 It is still with us today from the day in which He founded it. There is only one Church in the entire world which matches all of the Scriptural requirements as listed above. Can your sect match even one of those requirements? That's very simplistic. In my view, to believe in Jesus is to believe He existed, He's the Son of God and God in the flesh, never sinned, is our only savior and He did and say things in truth out of LOVE, NECESSITY AND with a PURPOSE. That said, we have to look closely to his deeds, particularly about establishing a Church. Why did He instituted such a thing? What was the necessity for that and the purpose? So that we don't ever loose sight of his true teachings. And what did His Church taught? Well, all we have to do is analyse all the primitive documents from the first centuries and come to the conclusion what Church today teaches the same things as the early church (and there's only one that corresponds: the Catholic Church). In conclusion: to believe in Christ is to believe and hold fast to His Church. To believe in Christ and reject His established Church is a dichotomy/contradiction. Even Christ identifies Himself with his Church (Acts 9:4; 22:7; Lk 10:16; 1Tim.3:15)

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

@@MultiSky7 snatched it it was the first church you clowns didnt come into existence until 1500 years later trying to steal it😁😁

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

@@MultiSky7 Who belongs to the Catholic Church? 836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320 837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.😊😊

@ex-muslimtestimonies001 17 күн бұрын

Also the Roman Catholic church suggested in their writings that Joseph was a very very old man and Mary was a very very young woman to further help their case that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but it has no biblical bases and by the way its nothing to be ashamed of that Mary and Joseph had a 'normal' marriage as God designed it for mankind.

@ImCarolB 17 күн бұрын

So many "traditions" or "interpretations" or "metaphors" are put forward to bolster up an idea that has no Biblical foundation.

@nschlaak 17 күн бұрын

Agreed. This concept of an aged Joseph clears up two problems they have, not being fruitful and multiplying and an early in Jesus' life disappearing Joseph.

@supersilverhazeroker 17 күн бұрын

@@ImCarolB because they are slipping in paganism. it's pagan mother goddess worship. the catholic church calls itself the mother of all churches. they are the mother of harlots, they perform all kinds of pagan idolatry under the banner of christianity.

@michaelnewzealand1888 17 күн бұрын

Matthew 1:25 says but he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.

@ruben-Juarez 17 күн бұрын

The Bible is quite clear Mary had kids… she didn’t stay a virgin period!!!

@bobbuley965 17 күн бұрын

dead saints or mary canot hear prayers .Only Jesus

@JesusisJehovahintheflesh 15 күн бұрын

If God can show the people in heaven what is occuring on earth, and He receives their prayers (revelation 5:8 and 8:1-3), it should be safe to assume that the saints in heaven can hear our prayers especially in revelation 5 and 8. Rejoice over her, you heavens! Rejoice, you people of God! Rejoice, apostles and prophets! For God has judged her with the judgment she imposed on you. God showed the people of heaven judgement of mystery Babylon, why won't be enable them to hear prayers from earth. It seems pointless to show saints in heaven receive prayers to God if they can't hear our prayers.

@john_negs7720 14 күн бұрын

They’re not dead

@Oprinca_Alexandru 14 күн бұрын

Read the bible again when you leave this body you are within Christ s presence you bible perverters

@bestfans 13 күн бұрын

😅😅 Tell me the thief in the cross is dead in heaven NOW 😅😅😅! was our Lord Lying ? Wake up from your sleep !

@Anish01_7 13 күн бұрын

@@bestfansI couldn't understand.

@fdavidharrisson5023 17 күн бұрын

I used to be a catholic. The way I get through to catholics about this issue is this... either Mary wasn't a virgin until death, or she sinned against her husband (this is huge because catholics believe she is the "queen of heaven). Because not yielding your body to your husband (or visa versa) is sin and causes your spouse to be tempted.

@nicklopez8004 17 күн бұрын

and these verses showed me that roman catholics were wrong in their thinking that Mary was More Blessed, but here’s Jesus’s response: Luke 11:27-28 27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

@fdavidharrisson5023 17 күн бұрын

@nicklopez8004 well said! Mary was a very blessed woman because YHWH chose her to bear His Son. But she was a sinner just like us, and it was only His grace and mercy that allowed for this honor.

@fnjesusfreak 17 күн бұрын

And "Queen of Heaven" is also the nickname of a false idol whose worship, among other things, got the Jews kicked out of the holy land in 587 BC.

@mattmurdock2868 17 күн бұрын

The "Queen of Heaven" was an abomination to our God.

@fdavidharrisson5023 17 күн бұрын

@mattmurdock2868 I know, but that is what they call her. I also had a charismatic catholic say that she is "the co- redempter of the world." Catholicism is paganism with a Christian facade.

@philiphultgren6268 17 күн бұрын

I really appreciate your videos! Bless you and your household in the name of our Lord

@michaelnewzealand1888 17 күн бұрын

The only reason that Mary needed to be a virgin was so that she could fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 and also so that Jesus was coming from the Holy Spirit not from the seed of her husband Joseph. After Jesus was born it says they consummated the marriage (Mat 1:25) and also it was not necessary for Mary to be a virgin any longer. The prophecy was fulfilled the messiah was born. So Joseph could have a normal marital relationship with his wife and vice versa

@ferventheat 17 күн бұрын

To investigate,if you haven't heard of it, is the curse of jeconiah. Because this was the kingly lineage from David, Jesus through Mary would have been cursed. So it has to be a miracle to avoid the curse kzbin.info/www/bejne/raO1Y2N3fpKDm80si=S21DM7to4gN7B58g

@user-fp3fw3zc9i 17 күн бұрын

NOT ONLY ANTICHRIST BUT ALSO LACK OF STUDING THE SCRIPTURES. THIS IS TRUE ALL HERETICS,PROTESTANTS, JW AND SO ON TRYING TO PROVE THAT VIRGIN MARY THE "THEOTOKOS" WAS NOT A VIRGIN. FIND ME A VERSE INTO THE BIBLE WHICH SAYS THAT MARY AND JOSEPH WERE MARRIED...

@horridhenry9920 17 күн бұрын

Some translations say “Young women”, rather than “virgin “. In any event it only makes sense from a theological standpoint.

@michaelnewzealand1888 16 күн бұрын

@@horridhenry9920 Yes the Hebrew word could mean that but logically if a prophecy said "a yound woman would conceive and have a child" there would be 100 million candidates and it would be a meaningless prophecy, but "a virgin would conceive and have a child", there is only one candidate for the Messiah, Jesus.

@anthonypetrozzelli5429 16 күн бұрын

No, she had to be sinless to give birth to Christ!

@randycarson9812 13 күн бұрын

Martin Luther (1483-1546) “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

Isn't that the guy who started the Protestant Revolition? 🤔🤔

@albionblue123 17 күн бұрын

You should do a video on infant baptism v adult baptism a hotly debated topic.

@mikem3789 17 күн бұрын

Not for those who know their Bible.

@catholictruth102 16 күн бұрын

@@mikem3789 Baptism of both is necessary for salvation.

@eddardgreybeard 16 күн бұрын

@@mikem3789 Those who know their bible would know entire households were baptized under the profession of faith of the head. Those who know their bible know that babies were circumcised after 8 days with zero consent from the child. Those who know their bible know that Acts and the letters were basically year zero of the Church, so of course believer/credo baptism would be a pretty standard norm as many adults were entering the Church, but in what world would the children be withheld from God and not be baptized and consecrated to the lord, free to profess the faith after they reach the age of reason? This is a nonsensical debate, especially when you're wont to argue that baptism isn't even necessary and plays no role in salvation: If that's your understanding, why on earth would you have anything to say about when someone is baptized?

@mikem3789 16 күн бұрын

@@eddardgreybeardLord have mercy on your soul 🙏

@eddardgreybeard 16 күн бұрын

@@mikem3789 I'm not the one that believes in strictly credo baptism completely contrary to 15 centuries of Christian practice and teaching

@raphaelfeneje486 17 күн бұрын

God bless you immensely for your work✝️❤️🙏

@catholictruth102 17 күн бұрын

Mary was absolutely a virgin her entire life, that is the church teaching. The word “until” there can have a different function. Like in 1 Cor 15:25, where it’s used in a similar way. *1 Corinthians 15:25* “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Can we conclude that Jesus will *only* reign until all His enemies are under His feet? No, of course not. He will reign forever. Thus why should anyone accept the uploader’s interpretation as to how the word is used in Matthew 1:25? Similar kind of thing with “brothers,” it’s used all throughout scripture to refer to people who are not biological brothers, like Peter and the Men of Israel from Acts 3:17. *Acts 3:17* “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” Does this mean Peter was biological brothers with everyone he was speaking to? Of course not. And so these are erroneous, easily refuted arguments.

@Tom_Xtremee_ 16 күн бұрын

@@catholictruth102 *Did Mary have other children?* There once lived a man named John Calvin, and he was shown the following verse: Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude?” And he was told that this means that Mary did not remain a virgin because it says here that she had other children. And what did he say to that? He said that this verse does not decide yet whether she had other children because it writes here that Mary is the mother of Jesus and that the Jesus has brothers, but it does not write here that Mary is the mother of these brothers. He said that to determine this, we need to examine the entire New Testament, and he did, and this is what he discovered: He did not find a single verse that wrote that Mary is the mother of anyone other than the Jesus. Which still doesn't settle the matter, because on the other hand, the bible doesn't say that she didn't give birth to any other children. During his research, he discovered something else, that the Apostle Paul called the Apostle James the brother of the Lord Jesus: Galatians 1: 19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” This clearly indicates that the brother mentioned in /Matthew 13:55/ named James was one of the twelve Apostles. And here we have the result of all this exegesis, because in the Gospel of Matthew, in the place where all the apostles are mentioned, it is given the names of the fathers of the Apostles named James, because there were two Apostles with this name: Matthew 10: 2-3 “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; *James, the son of Zebedee,* and his brother John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; *James, the son of Alphaeus…”* Here we clearly see that the two Apostles named James are not the sons of Joseph, the husband of Mary. On this biblical basis, John Calvin stated that this means that Christ's brothers mentioned in /Matthew 13:55/ and /Mark 6:3/ are not his natural brothers, but at most cousins or distant relatives. In addition, another of these brothers is named Judah, and he may be the same one who wrote the letter of Judah. And this letter starts like this: Jude 1: 1 “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” So Jude clearly states here that only James is his natural brother, but he does not call the Lord Jesus his brother. Then we have this verse: Gospel of John 19:27 “Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.” If Lord Jesus had any siblings, he would not have had to give his mother to his disciple because the responsibility of caring would have fallen to the eldest son. This was the custom back then. It never happened that a widow went into the care of strangers when she had adult children, because it would be a great insult to these children and it would be a scandal that the mother went into the care of strangers. However, there was still the matter of the verse: Gospel of Matthew 1: 25 “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus” Based on this verse, all those who do not believe in the virginity of Mary make sure that they teach well, but John Calvin, examining ancient Greek, found that they understood it wrong. He discovered that word “until” has other meanings in ancient Greek. Here Matthew only states that Joseph is not the biological father of the Lord Jesus, this verse does not specify what happened after the birth of the Lord Jesus... It's like this verse: Gospel of Matthew 28: 20 “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Does this verse say that Christ is with us only until the end of the world and then He will no longer be with us??? No! 2000 years ago, the content of such sentences only meant what happened before a specific event, but did not specify what would happen after that event. So finally John Calvin gave his verdict: He admitted that the brothers of the Lord Jesus mentioned in /Matthew 13:55/ and /Mark 6:3/ are not his natural brothers. So they may be his cousins or other relatives and that Lord Jesus is Mary’s only child, and Mary remained a virgin. So same conclusion did early church in second century, same conclusion did Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and even Protestant reformers. That’s how conclusion looks when we study whole bible! Let the truth shine again. Amen!

@baldwinthefourth4098 16 күн бұрын

@@Tom_Xtremee_ No, Mary did not have any other children.

@fdavidharrisson5023 14 күн бұрын

@@catholictruth102 your first premise is flawed. It has nothing to do with Mary and just because Jesus will reign forever, doesn't mean you can ignore the context of the scriptur. The only thing you have to even remotely suggest that Mary was a birgon until death is rcc teaching. There isn't one scriptural reference that even comes close. So it means nothing. The catechism is no better, or different than the book of Mormon. Your second premise is even worse. The scripture when Jesus is told His mother and brothers are outside ends with Jesus pointing out the difference between His brothers in the flesh and His spiritual brothers.

@catholictruth102 14 күн бұрын

@@fdavidharrisson5023 I showed in my parent comment that the word “until” can be used to have a different function from the way you’re trying to use it, thus what proof do you have that Mary lost her virginity?

@patrickbrowne4606 17 күн бұрын

It’s SOO CRAZY that the “Catholic church” teaches this, when The Bible clearly says that The Lord had siblings. Also, the scripture “Joseph did not know her UNTIL she gave birth to her first born Son” also shows that she and Joseph did eventually have marital relations.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

Martin Luther God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother…She is the true mother of God and bearer of God…Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs…just as your son is not two sons…even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539). It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527). John Calvin "There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25 - But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS! "For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company.... "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE...." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562) Ulrich Zwingli "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456]....

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

SO WHO WERE THESE "BROTHERS OF JESUS?" A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus's brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary. Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. This "other Mary" at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus's so-called "brothers", James and Joses. B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. "But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." The precise positioning of the ANDs in the original Greek makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary's sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus. C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn't he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly not as a brother of Jesus, only as a servant. To have identified himself as Jesus's blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but Jude doesn't so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus's so-called "brothers" is eliminated. D. James "Brother of Jesus" is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, "brother of Jesus" cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling. A few more points: • In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care! • The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary" Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death? ... Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother. Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother! Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the "brothers" of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty." A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the "brothers" of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context. The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin...how can you reconcile those seemingly different positions?Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother. Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother! Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the "brothers" of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty." A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the "brothers" of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context. Whenever you hear black people address themselves as? "brother" nowadays does it mean the people are literally siblings. You are making observations on a culture you know nothing about. And Joseph was older than Mary (a LOT older) and had other children by his first wife. "Until" in Greek means up to the point, but not beyond necessarily. 2 Samuel 6:23- “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” Saul had children with his wife after she died? edit: the womb of St Mary is closed as the Lord pass thru it. Ezechiel 44:2 And the Eternal says to me: This door will be closed, it will not open, and nobody will pass there; because the Eternal, God of Israel entered by there. It will remain closed.

@mattmoeller1105 17 күн бұрын

It is funny how people think that two people who were betrothed to each other had no desire to have relations with each other. Did Joseph all of a sudden not want to have relations with her anymore?

@fernandojrapodaca 17 күн бұрын

@@bibleman8010Thank you for this nugget in the NT.” No scripture does not contradict the teaching of the C.C. About the “Brothers “ of Jesus “when”, SCRIPTURE IS PROPERLY INTERPRETED in CONTEXT ( you are correct), Accurately is a figure of speech that literally means something like “cutting a straight road”, in regard to the message of truth it means “correctly handling “ or imparting it without deviation “(Net note). 2 Samuel 6:23 Michal’s childlessness is especially mentioned as a punishment of her pride. This was the deepest humiliation for oriental woman.( for vivid description of the scenes of this chapter see Stanley Jewish Church, second Series p89-98 Lect.23. Ezekiel 44:1-3 “Prince and the east gate”, none of your OT passages have anything to do with the womb of Mary “shut “.

@DamslettesSIMP 17 күн бұрын

It's all about the dang translations, the Catholic Church believes its proper translation meant to be Jesus' cousins or relatives

@pastorernestalbuquerque4770 17 күн бұрын

Thanks Caleb, was blessed by your sharing on this subject. God bless.

@catholictruth102 17 күн бұрын

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

My pleasure!

@baldwinthefourth4098 16 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblicallyYour pleasure to blaspheme the mother of the Man you claim to be your God? I pray God brings misfortune upon you for your blasphemy.

@brianpace3837 17 күн бұрын

Good study, and important also. Needed info for today.

@raphaelfeneje486 17 күн бұрын

Psalm 69 happens to be a messianic passage. Here is what it says about the Messiah Ps.69.8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. Ps.69.9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. We all know the Messiah was truly an alien to his mother's children!✝️❤️

@ImCarolB 17 күн бұрын

It is the answer to why Jesus put his mother in the care of John. His own siblings were not yet believers.

@raphaelfeneje486 17 күн бұрын

@@ImCarolB exactly!!

@raphaelfeneje486 17 күн бұрын

@@ImCarolB exactly!!

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

It's certainly not talking about the state of Israel.

@henrybayard6574 17 күн бұрын

Why is it that protestants can't quote scripture in context?? Funny how you skipped v.5. Was christ a sinner?? Looks like it according to you protestants!@😅

@Remoniq 17 күн бұрын

Starting to feel like you're the one of few that I can trust if I ever have questions.

@nschlaak 17 күн бұрын

Here is another site that I find almost constant harmony with, Got Questions Dot Org. The difference I have with only two of their positions probably lies with me and my understanding of Scripture and may have nothing to do with their theology. I know for certain that I'm not infallible as I apply 2 Timothy 2:15 in my life. "Study to show yourself approved unto God ....."

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

Thanks mate, I'm sure there are plenty of others. None of us is perfec tho :)

@jdbishop2697 17 күн бұрын

Pastor Chuck Baldwin of Liberty Fellowship is one source you can definitely trust listening to for getting all necessary truth when it involves non-compromised Biblical doctrines.

@andrewpatton5114 17 күн бұрын

@@jdbishop2697 Who appointed him as a pastor?

@catholictruth102 17 күн бұрын

@PulpitoftheLastDays 3 күн бұрын

I just found your channel. As I was listening, I was thinking, "I'm going to leave a comment that the prophecy in Psalm 69:8 is clear, that Mary did have other sons." and just then, that was the very next thing you shared. Well done!

@adrianlouis2108 14 күн бұрын

Like if she was supposed to be VIrgin the whole life.. Why would God even preapre Joseph to be her husband? Sex is holy and God Loves it when we enjoy it the right way inside the marriage. And my personal opinion,"God knew she will still need companionship as a human and will need a husband and a children... and off course if Jesus was born from virgin no one will believe her,and see her as adulterous women also no man will accept her. Hence God gave her a husband herself. "

@christclinger6540 17 күн бұрын

The Roman Catholic Church always argues that sola scriptura was fabricated way later. Insisting that the author of scripture alone is not a traditional/historical Christian teaching. But for one it was recorded , in scripture, that the apostles used scripture to make the case that Jesus is the Christ to the unbelievers of their day. Jesus himself used scripture to argue with the Pharisees and show them their errors. A true sign of a cult is that they claim authority and that their extra biblical writings are as important as God’s word. If you read the Bible , the gospel is extremely clear. Don’t be deceived by cults who claim they are the only way. There is only one way to heaven and that’s repentant faith in Christ Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church will have their day in God’s court and it wont go well.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

If you read the Bible , the gospel is extremely clear. That would be the Word of God preserved by the Catholic Church as the bible, right?😜😜yup you go to that very same catholic church for your authority how comical you are

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

“Roman Catholic Church,” but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term). Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.” A similar complex of insults arose around “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.) This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.😉😉

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

You're arguing against your own views without even knowing it. There was no new testament writings at the time. So by arguing for scripture alone and one can't add to it, you are arguing against the new testament as it was added after Jesus. Third by limiting the voice of God to the bible you are setting up a false idol like when the Israelites decided to worship God through a golden bull. They are limiting God and imposing restrictions and rules that did not exist. God can and does exist outside of the bible. The bible is the complete scriptures, but it isn't to be used to limit God either.

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

This was even argued at the time between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees included the prophets in Scripture and in liturgy. The Sadducees wanted the liturgy and teachings to be based solely on the Torah. But they still valued the rest of the tanakh but didn't believe it to be God breathed so to speak.

@christclinger6540 17 күн бұрын

@@KillerofGods are you claiming that the Catholic Church’s writing are part of scripture? I am most definitely not arguing against my views. I’m saying that certain books are inspired and certain ones aren’t. The ones that have contradictions are not inspired and should not have authority. Jesus always used the revelation of God that they had at that time to prove His point. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Churches texts are a revelation from God that needs to be taken as serious as the Bible? Because that is exactly how cults form. The true view is that the canon is closed now and we know which books are in and which are out. But scripture was still being constructed during Jesus and the apostle’s ministries. And as the gospel accounts and letters were being written they were being accepted as authoritative inspired texts, unlike what the Catholic Church and other cults have developed over time. I am by no means limiting God when I say the canon is closed. God definitely does exist outside of the Bible but His word, His revelation is complete. God works still today! I fully believe that! The Holy Spirit is still saving souls. But in order to keep from deceiving people, He has completed His revelation so that all know exactly what the authentic Gospel is now. I have no problem with saying the “Catholic” or “universal” church is the first, one and only church of God. It’s just a name. As long as the true church resembles what is in scripture it can be called whatever. But if the early church was to have the name Catholic Church, then the name has been hijacked by heretical paganism and in no way does the 1st century church resemble what resides in Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy today. I’m sorry, but it’s because of the idea of continued revelation that we have false prophets like Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and frauds like Charles Taze Russell. Along with that, we have heretical teachings that draw people away from the true gift of saving faith in Christ by the grace of God. So many folks are on their way to hell because they have been led to believe heretical teachings because of this idea of continued revelation.

@botsterfilion7718 14 күн бұрын

Bible 101. So many dear Roman Catholics will not see it, cannot see it

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

I disagree. The Catholic faith doesn't stop at the Bible. The Church is spiritualally alive with the Pope as the head. The Catholic devotion of The Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary tells the many offenses they receive. And the attack of the Virgin Mary is one of them. Our faith goes beyond just Sacred Scripture. It includes Sacred Tradtion. The most notable proof of this Tradition can be found in the Miracles in Lourdes France and the Miracle of Divine Mercy in the Philippines. The miracles in France shows the healing powers of God, and to this day, scientificaly can not be explained. In the Philippines, thousands of people witness a miracle involving the sun. ** Miracle of Divine Mercy can be found on KZbin. Jesus and Mary, along with the saints, are alive in the Catholic Church and go beyond just Bible alone.

@Ms.noelp453 17 күн бұрын

Truth! Thanks Caleb 🙏🏽 Job well done 👍🏽

@anitassigmundsen2554 16 күн бұрын

Thank you so much for this important teaching sir.

@iThinkBiblically 16 күн бұрын

You are most welcome

@Asia-dr4yj 17 күн бұрын

Nicely done. I would also add that the consummation for marriage is the joining of two to become one - without sex, then they were not properly married. And as a practical consideration, it would be weird for two that love each other and marry not to have sex.

@andrewpatton5114 17 күн бұрын

And yet, that was a common practice in the early church. Many bishops, presbyters, and deacons were married, but once they were ordained, they no longer had relations with their wives. Likewise, Moses had no relations with his wife after God called him as a prophet. Under the Old Covenant, the priests and Levites had to separate from their wives for the duration of their service, lest they desecrate the Temple, for marital relations made a man ritually unclean for a day, and anyone who entered the Temple in a state of ritual uncleanness was guilty of sacrilege.

@Asia-dr4yj 16 күн бұрын

And yet, the bible says in 1 Corinthians 7:5 "Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." this would agree with your reference to the Levites that did not have relations with their wife's during their temple service - but after this it would be normal wife/husband relations.

@andrewpatton5114 16 күн бұрын

@@Asia-dr4yj The very next verse, "I say this by way of concession, however, not as a command."

@Asia-dr4yj 16 күн бұрын

I Cor 7:3-4 "The husband SHOULD fulfill his martial duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife" - this would apply to the ministers of the early church that you say denied their wife's in marriage - along with Joseph and Mary who would have honored their marriage bonds to each other and God by not only consummating their marriage, but by also not denying each other their God given marital rights - cheers.

@Asia-dr4yj 16 күн бұрын

And the very next verse, Paul clarifies this by saying1 Cor 7:7 "I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that" - in other words Paul is simply saying that marriage is a concession, one that he has chosen to deny himself - but he is not saying that married people should deny themselves normal sexual relations for extended times, as he makes very clear.

@benjaminofperrin 17 күн бұрын

Yes very good video. The Catholics unfortunately get a lot wrong.

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

You meant, “Catholic Dogmas and Doctrines get everything right.”

@xneutralgodx 14 күн бұрын

Ya no @@ByzantiumArchon

@ByzantiumArchon 13 күн бұрын

@@xneutralgodx Uh, ya.

@xneutralgodx 13 күн бұрын

@@ByzantiumArchon nope

@ByzantiumArchon 13 күн бұрын

@@xneutralgodx Ναί

@AngelaDavis-yz3xf 17 күн бұрын

Thank you 🙏

@timothymcdonald7407 3 күн бұрын

You’re over your head, Prince Albert.

@user-pl7si5pn5k 17 күн бұрын

The whole point of the virgin birth of Jesus is that his soul came from God the Father so that he didn't have a sin nature. If Mary was born without sin then she should have also been born from God without a physical father. Yet we are told she had an earthly father. She also stated God was her saviour. The Roman Catholic church did not even come out with Mary being sinless and a perpetual virgin until the 12th century, which is around 800 years after the council of Nicaea when the canon of the Bible was finally established in 325 AD. In other words, even the apostles of the 12 apostles and their apostles the Church Fathers knew nothing of this perpetual virginity of Mary. Why do you think all the so called verified apparitions of Mary that have occurred around the world has her saying Non-Biblical rubbish which can easily be established to be demonic phenomena?

@mattmoeller1105 17 күн бұрын

Whoever came up with the idea that Mary isn't a sinner really doesn't believe the Bible. Not only does it contradict Romans 3:23, but also if Mary were not a sinner, then why did she and Joseph offer up a burnt and sin offering in Luke 2:23-24, which was required for the woman who gave birth in Leviticus 12:6-8? Why would she offer a sin offering, if she weren't a sinner? I agree with you. It is interesting how almost all of the apparitions came after the Reformation, nor was she sinless until after the Reformation as well. That is not suspicious!

@andrewpatton5114 17 күн бұрын

@@mattmoeller1105 Why was Jesus baptized by John, even though John said he needed to be baptized by Jesus? They acted out of obedience, even though they had no strict need for these works.

@mattmoeller1105 17 күн бұрын

@@andrewpatton5114 Yes, but baptism is not the OT Law, so Mary and Joseph had to obey what God commanded.

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

Even the Orthodox believe she was sinless. They/we just don't believe in the immaculate conception. She was cleansed of the taint of original sin when she accepted her role as theotokos.

@mattmoeller1105 16 күн бұрын

@@KillerofGods So Mary's inherited sinful nature was cleansed when she accepted her role of theotokos, but her bleeding from giving birth made her impure, and for that God required a sin offering as mentioned in Leviticus 12:8; which they offered in Luke 2:23-24. So, if they had to offer a sin offering for her impurity which lasted seven days (Leviticus 12:2), then it doesn't sound like her sin left her during the conception, nor when she accepted the role of theotokos, since her sin lasted a whole week after giving birth. It wasn't an intentional sin, but nonetheless it was still a sin that required a sin offering. Interestingly, if Mary does offer an offering for sin, then she is showing she is a sinner, but if she doesn't offer an offering according to God's law, then she is showing she is sinning willfully. Either way she is showing she is a sinner.

@lindseywalker6925 17 күн бұрын

There are no queens in heaven. Only One King

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

and as the Bible says The Mother of the King is the Queen mother😁😁

@emchristian4793 17 күн бұрын

@@bibleman8010 are you suggesting that God Almighty has a mother? I really hope not

@mattmurdock2868 17 күн бұрын

@@bibleman8010 No. The King of heaven has a bride, and it not His mother, but the church. In scripture, the "Queen of heaven" is an abomination to our God; a detestable thing.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

@@emchristian4793 where did Jesus come from So then you do not believe Mary carried the divinity in her womb and gave birth to it?....You believe rather that the divinity of GOD only came into Christ after he was born and seperate the divinity from the humanity of Christ(this is Nestorians)?....Do you believe the word mother means source?...If so do you believe your mother is the source of your soul?...or is she your mother because she carried you in her womb and gave birth to you?😉😉

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

@@mattmurdock2868 The King of heaven has a bride, and earth Is Jesus and he has a mother😘😘

@paulmulauzi6892 15 күн бұрын

Can you please make a video of what the gospel is for me please 🙏🙏🙏

@thejohnwhiteproject5202 17 күн бұрын

Thank you for this video. I have had many discussions regarding this topic but it always comes back around to “ that’s your interpretation “.

@davidbermudez7704 17 күн бұрын

That's how mind-controlled Roman Catholics are by the MOTHER OF HARLOTS

@gailwatson4927 17 күн бұрын

My Catholic friends tried to tell me that Mary was a virgin her whole life. Jesus had 1/2 siblings so Mary had other children.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

SO WHO WERE THESE "BROTHERS OF JESUS?"😁😁 A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus's brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary. Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. This "other Mary" at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus's so-called "brothers", James and Joses. B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. "But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." The precise positioning of the ANDs in the original Greek makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary's sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus. C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn't he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly not as a brother of Jesus, only as a servant. To have identified himself as Jesus's blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but Jude doesn't so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus's so-called "brothers" is eliminated. D. James "Brother of Jesus" is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, "brother of Jesus" cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling. A few more points: • In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care! • The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary" Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death? Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother. Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother! Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the "brothers" of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty." A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the "brothers" of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context. The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin...how can you reconcile those seemingly different positions?Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother. Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother! Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the "brothers" of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty." A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the "brothers" of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context. Whenever you hear black people address themselves as? "brother" nowadays does it mean the people are literally siblings. You are making observations on a culture you know nothing about. And Joseph was older than Mary (a LOT older) and had other children by his first wife. "Until" in Greek means up to the point, but not beyond necessarily. 2 Samuel 6:23- “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” Saul had children with his wife after she died? edit: the womb of St Mary is closed as the Lord pass thru it. Ezechiel 44:2 And the Eternal says to me: This door will be closed, it will not open, and nobody will pass there; because the Eternal, God of Israel entered by there. It will remain closed.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

and your protestant reformers tell you the same thing 😜😜 Martin Luther God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother…She is the true mother of God and bearer of God…Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs…just as your son is not two sons…even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539). It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527). John Calvin "There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25 - But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS! "For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company.... "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE...." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562) Ulrich Zwingli "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456].

@beerussolos1063 17 күн бұрын

No, Joseph was a widow and had children from a previous woman, Jesus is the only child Mary had and no other, if he had biological other brothers he wouldn't have told John to take care of his mom and that his mom is now Johns mother and John now is her son

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

First of all the word used just means male relative, so they choose to translate it as brothers or brethren. Same word is used to describe Abraham and lot. Secondly those brothers were from Joseph's first marriage according to tradition.

@catholictruth102 17 күн бұрын

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

You should really learn the Bible and the typology between the Old and the New. Every Church Father who knew Mary was sinless, ever Virgin and assumed into Heaven, got it from the Old Testament in light of the New. -- The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and "overshadow" (episkiazo) them. (Exodus 40:34-35, cf. v. 3) The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High "over-shadows" (episkiazo) her. (Luke 1:35) -- David "arose and went" to the hill country of Judah to bring up "the ark of God." (2 Samuel 6:2) Mary "arose and went" into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth. (Luke 1:39) -- David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" (2 Samuel 6:9) Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43) -- David "leaped" before the Ark as it was brought in "with shouting." 2 Samuel 6:15-16) John "leaped" in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice and Elizabeth cried "with a loud shout." (Luke 1:41-42) -- The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, "three months." (2 Samuel 6:11) Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth's house, "three months." (Luke 1:56) -- Then God's temple in heaven was opened, *_and the ark of his covenant appeared within his temple;_* and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. *_And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun,_* with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for deliv-ery. (Revelation 11:19-12:2) Both the Ark and the woman appear to be *_in the heavenly Temple._* Notice the imagery of "noises" or "voices" (Greek phonai) coming from the heavenly "temple" and a woman "in anguish for delivery" (Revelation 11:19, 12:2). These images are taken directly from the book of Isaiah: "A voice from the temple! The voice of the LORD, rendering recompense to his enemies! Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son" (Isaiah 66:6-7).

@johndavid3474 15 күн бұрын

You should learn from the scriptures that the dead are asleep and have not risen. That includes the saints you pray to and Mary mother of Jesus Christ. Ecclesiastes 9:5 ESV For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Daniel 12:2 ESV And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. ... John 11:11 ESV After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” Psalm 146:4 ESV When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. John 5:28-29 ESV Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

@@johndavid3474 Another product of “sola-scriptura” heresy. Judging from your other comment, you’re a Unitarian..? I pray you’re not. The sleep you quoted in Daniel is phenomenological sleep, not literal sleep. Dead people look like they are sleeping, especially on their deathbeds (and people often _die_ on beds, hence the sleep analogy). The Bible uses “sleep” as a euphemism for “death”, just like we use it today… Revelation 6:9-10 - When he [Christ] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?'” Unconscious people can’t cry out for vengeance, last I checked. Therefore, conscious, disembodied souls exist. Revelation 20:4 - “Then I saw . . . the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Again, disembodied souls (they’re literally beheaded). John sees them coming to life to reign with Christ; hence pre-resurrection. Alive and conscious in Heaven. Do I need to mention the Transfiguration to rest my case further?

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

@ZachariahMorningstar 17 күн бұрын

In Psalm 69 verse 9 and 10 the word for Children is what in Hebrew?

@fnjesusfreak 17 күн бұрын

There's actually a way they worm around the Mt 1.25 issue. And believe it or not the Tomson version of 1576 (using a 1587 Geneva as reference) does this: "The little word 'till', in the Hebrew tongue, giveth us to understand also that a thing shall not come to pass in time to come; as Michal _had no children till her death's day,_ 2 Samuel 6.23, and in the last chapter of this Evangelist, 'Behold, I am with you till the end of the world.'" John Wesley appears to have made a similar statement. But I think the open naming of four brothers makes it clear that they are referring to actual blood siblings.

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

Orthodox believe it was a second marriage and Joseph had kids in the first marriage. Also the word brethren in Hebrew just means male relative. Like it is used for Lot and Abraham.

@fnjesusfreak 17 күн бұрын

@@KillerofGods Doesn't work in context.

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

@@fnjesusfreak 1:25? It works perfectly in context. Mathew 28:20, Gn 8:7, DT 34:6, 2kg 6:23

@eddardgreybeard 17 күн бұрын

@@fnjesusfreak It absolutely does, because of how many were identified as sons of Mary of Cleopas, and "James, brother of the Lord" is identified in the gospels as James son of Alpheus.

@alphabeta1337 17 күн бұрын

I will be virgin my entire life

@TheRealRenn 17 күн бұрын

Okay, I will take your bait. Why do you say that?

@antoniotodaro4093 16 күн бұрын

Have fun, just do not marry then

@TheElizabethashby 17 күн бұрын

SPOT ON

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

Thanks

@TheElizabethashby 17 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblically LOVE YOUR PROGRAMS

@maksim3417 14 күн бұрын

Not really, those kids were Joseph's kids from the previous marriage

@runelund5600 3 күн бұрын

@@maksim3417 Where do you get that idea.

@captainmartin1219 16 күн бұрын

Thank you the bible clearly says Joseph had marital relations with Mary after Jesus was born. To be honest I do not get what the obsession is with her being a virgin all her life as there is nothing sinful about a husband and wife engaging in sexual relations.

@mattmoeller1105 16 күн бұрын

It gives Catholics validation for their praying to her, of other traditions, of Catholicism itself, and its trustworthiness. And, if they are wrong, then there is also a lot at stake.

@nishalp1747 8 күн бұрын

Thank you May the Lord bless you

@gayleday861 17 күн бұрын

True. She had other children after Jesus. She was Joseph's wife.

@user-fp3fw3zc9i 17 күн бұрын

FOOL AND ANTICHRIST THAT YOU TURN AGAINST GOD AND HIS SON

@Tom_Xtremee_ 16 күн бұрын

*Did Mary have other children?* There once lived a man named John Calvin, and he was shown the following verse: Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude?” And he was told that this means that Mary did not remain a virgin because it says here that she had other children. And what did he say to that? He said that this verse does not decide yet whether she had other children because it writes here that Mary is the mother of Jesus and that the Jesus has brothers, but it does not write here that Mary is the mother of these brothers. He said that to determine this, we need to examine the entire New Testament, and he did, and this is what he discovered: He did not find a single verse that wrote that Mary is the mother of anyone other than the Jesus. Which still doesn't settle the matter, because on the other hand, the bible doesn't say that she didn't give birth to any other children. During his research, he discovered something else, that the Apostle Paul called the Apostle James the brother of the Lord Jesus: Galatians 1: 19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” This clearly indicates that the brother mentioned in /Matthew 13:55/ named James was one of the twelve Apostles. And here we have the result of all this exegesis, because in the Gospel of Matthew, in the place where all the apostles are mentioned, it is given the names of the fathers of the Apostles named James, because there were two Apostles with this name: Matthew 10: 2-3 “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; *James, the son of Zebedee,* and his brother John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; *James, the son of Alphaeus…”* Here we clearly see that the two Apostles named James are not the sons of Joseph, the husband of Mary. On this biblical basis, John Calvin stated that this means that Christ's brothers mentioned in /Matthew 13:55/ and /Mark 6:3/ are not his natural brothers, but at most cousins or distant relatives. In addition, another of these brothers is named Judah, and he may be the same one who wrote the letter of Judah. And this letter starts like this: Jude 1: 1 “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” So Jude clearly states here that only James is his natural brother, but he does not call the Lord Jesus his brother. Then we have this verse: Gospel of John 19:27 “Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.” If Lord Jesus had any siblings, he would not have had to give his mother to his disciple because the responsibility of caring would have fallen to the eldest son. This was the custom back then. It never happened that a widow went into the care of strangers when she had adult children, because it would be a great insult to these children and it would be a scandal that the mother went into the care of strangers. However, there was still the matter of the verse: Gospel of Matthew 1: 25 “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus” Based on this verse, all those who do not believe in the virginity of Mary make sure that they teach well, but John Calvin, examining ancient Greek, found that they understood it wrong. He discovered that word “until” has other meanings in ancient Greek. Here Matthew only states that Joseph is not the biological father of the Lord Jesus, this verse does not specify what happened after the birth of the Lord Jesus... It's like this verse: Gospel of Matthew 28: 20 “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Does this verse say that Christ is with us only until the end of the world and then He will no longer be with us??? No! 2000 years ago, the content of such sentences only meant what happened before a specific event, but did not specify what would happen after that event. So finally John Calvin gave his verdict: He admitted that the brothers of the Lord Jesus mentioned in /Matthew 13:55/ and /Mark 6:3/ are not his natural brothers. So they may be his cousins or other relatives and that Lord Jesus is Mary’s only child, and Mary remained a virgin. So same conclusion did early church in second century, same conclusion did Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and even Protestant reformers. That’s how conclusion looks when we study whole bible! Let the truth shine again. Amen!

@saintanthonythegreatorthod8872 15 күн бұрын

Truly biblical and true to the teaching of the Church Fathers.

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

Amen, brother! Let those who an ear, let him hear.

@Dive-Deeper 10 күн бұрын

That's not a comment, that's a dissertation.

@tigers7834 16 күн бұрын

I didn't realize that they taught that. I guess they missed the verse when Jesus was told his mother and brothers and sisters were outside. Not to mention one of his brothers wrote one of the books

@Adam-zn9yh 15 күн бұрын

I am shocked myself how do they get there and are so angry about it it's clear bible teaches opposite

@MichaelLightning7 7 күн бұрын

Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life! No one comes to the Father except through him!

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

Agreed! And Mary, our spiritual mother, leads us to Jesus! Sometimes we just need that motherly love that helps us brings us closer to Him. Which she did for me 😀

@saintanthonythegreatorthod8872 15 күн бұрын

The curse of the internet, anyone with a smart phone can make a video and upload it to KZbin. So here you are. All it takes is convincing people to believe sola scriptura then you postulate yourself as a "Bible teacher," and you get away with propagating heresy.

@delgande 10 күн бұрын

It enrages me that these people can blaspheme so proudly and justify themselves under sola scriptura They'll even go as far as say that the Holy Spirit guides them to their misunderstanding It's sickening They need prayers and humility

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

Honestly, it is absolutely stunning how the Catholic Church does not spread the devotion of Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart of Mary that well in the United States. These devotions are from Jesus, which shows how much his heart is offended by his attack on the Eucharistic and his mother. I will give credit to Fr. Alar and his KZbin channel in explaining the faith in which he debuts this heresy.

@sarco64 15 күн бұрын

A "good Catholic" would answer as follows: "I know that Mary was perpetually a virgin and that she never sinned because that is what the Catholic church, the only true church, teaches. If you think that the Bible says otherwise, then you are not interpreting the Bible correctly. Only the Catholic Church is able to interpret the Bible correctly."

@iThinkBiblically 15 күн бұрын

Yeah, they exchange the voice of God for the voice of mere men.

@GoodPicture-pg5qm 8 күн бұрын

Become a good Catholic and answer better than that

@HonduranHoneymoonhon 17 күн бұрын

another banger video good job

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

Appreciate it

@GoodPicture-pg5qm 9 күн бұрын

How did you get your bible. Did you write it yourself?

@HipolitaofZion 17 күн бұрын

Great teaching!

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

Thank you!

@charlesstreng1074 16 күн бұрын

Great Job as always Caleb. Having been a Roman Catholic until I was 40, I know just how that justify there false doctrine. As a Catholic, I was informed by a priest teaching in a class, not to read the Bible for it would only confuse you. We are the only ones who can interpret it. Yes, sure, just like the other false teachers present their out of context use of God's Word, and unfortunately, many believers fail to study the Word of God themselves as it says in 2 Timothy 2:15 - "e diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. I have been a teaching for over 40 years, and have many times encountered those who do not even know the basics of God's precious Word.

@vampyresgraveyard3307 15 күн бұрын

Except Mathew chapter 1:24-25 is talking about before not after

@SilentSteve939 17 күн бұрын

I have some more questions about the Catholic Church. Are there any books that can actually educate me on this?

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

If I weren't Catholic, I'd look for the Church that the world despises, for the world despised Jesus, and he would be there. - Fulton Sheen Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.". Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." Jn 17:18, "Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." Jn 17:22-23, "And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." "Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior," or "Ask Jesus into your heart" isn't the biblical answer. It’s important to be saved from hell, damnation, and the stain of original sin, but what are we saved for? We are saved for union with Christ. Our salvation began when we were born again through baptism and God’s own Divine Life was restored in our souls, making us like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Original (first) Sin. As we go through life, we are united with Christ through the Sacraments he left as gifts for us, especially through Penance (forgiveness of our sins committed since Baptism) and the Eucharist (partaking of God’s own Life, His own Divine Nature, 2 Peter 1:4) - until that day when we are truly united with Him in heaven. Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31-46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell. (For the teaching on venial (non-deadly) and mortal (deadly) sins, see 1 John 5:16-17) What I must do to be saved: *I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood). * I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21 * I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others. * I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others. * I must be a member of God's true church. Acts 2:46-47. * I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23 * I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7. * I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30. * I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God" Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged by them. *I must strive to be holy. "Strive for peace with everyone and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14 *I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13. And ... ? What else must I do? Catechism #432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Why You Should Be Catholic kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqLJn2prrMyZj6M&feature=PlayList&p=9CABB60BD5DE8F8B&index=27

@user-pl7si5pn5k 17 күн бұрын

A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt is good. There's also a documentary of the same.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

@@user-pl7si5pn5k so much for Dave hunt I could go a lot further Quite often, fundamentalist flamers show up to unload a barrage. These people never respond to questions or objections, but only wish to hear themselves talk. It's much easier to make generalized, unsubstantiated claims than it is to actually track down the facts. Especially when the "facts" you claim are proven to be non-existent. 'Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.' John 7:24" "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." (Proverbs 18:2) Proverbs 10:18 The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool. Read the book called, Foxes Book of Martyrs. Most ecclesiastical historians agree his work isnt often accurate. In other words, you are simply reading propaganda. Not that you seem to have a particular bias (sarcasm). I am in awe of your arrogance. You sit in judgment, falsely slandering others, always excusing yourself in your self-righteousness. Hate to break it to all my extra holy protestant brethren, but "The mother of harlots" (not the whore) of rev 17 is the city of Jerusalem. Her 2 daughters are Israel and Judah, who played the harlot in their fathers house, her sisters are Sodom, Babylon and Egypt. Try reading the bible. When the Whore falls we read, "'Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you'. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth" (Rev 18:20 and 24). So, the Whore could not be the Catholic Church because 1) it did not exist to kill the old testament prophets and 2) No blood is on the Churches hand with respect to any Apostle. Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27-28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10). Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century and BEFORE. WHO KILLED THE PROPHETS Indeed, Jesus himself could not be any clearer in Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! Rev 17:5 "Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus...." Rev 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.” Rev 18:10 "Alas, alas, the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.” Rev 18:20 "Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints and apostles and prophets! For God has given judgment for you against her.' SO WHO IS BABYLON - THE GREAT CITY MOTHER OF WHORES ANSWER REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY "where also their lord was crucified - JERUSALEM NOT ROME Passages of Revelation pertaining to the whore or the harlot makes sense when it is referring to ancient PAGAN Rome but makes no sense when Fundamentalists try to associate it with modern Rome. The passage says that the Whore will have power over kings. Modern Rome has no power over modern "kings", in fact there are almost no kings left in the world. Nor does the Church (which rests on Vatican hill outside of the 7 hills of Rome) have power over political leaders, otherwise ABORTION, PORNOGRAPHY, and HOMOSEXUALITY with HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE would not be legal in the civilized world. Revelation says that the whore was the center of commerce. (Rev 18:17-19) No economist today will say that modern Rome or the church is a leader in commerce. The US, Japan, etc are. However, ancient Pagan Rome was a leader in commerce. The Vatican is on Vatican hill and outside the 7 hills of Rome that that city is built on. And it MUST be noted the bibles including the KJV translate it not as hill but as mountain. Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. Jerusalem is built on 7 mounts. One source, jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/rev-13.html, lists the seven, and explains a bit more of why some authors list different mountains, and includes a map: 1.) Mount Gared; 2.) Mount Goath; 3.) Mount Acra; 4.) Mount Bezetha; 5.) Mount Moriah; 6.) Mount Ophel; 7.) Mount Zion. The seven mountains upon which Jerusalem was built are (according to wikipedia): Scopus, Nob, Olivet, "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence", "Mount Zion", the "Ophel Mount" and the new "Mount Zion." Or perhaps interpretations are far more complex than the followers of Jack Chick might expect, Who knows? Perhaps the 7 mountains refer to the 7 continents. Perhaps the harlot is in fact apostate Christianity of a protestant variety. It may not hurt to look at all the possibility bu NO ONE should go about insisting that there interpretation against another faith is correct. It is too convoluted with too many possibilities. And no one should contradict scripture in their assertions.

@bibleman8010 17 күн бұрын

@@user-pl7si5pn5k so much for Dave hunt I could go a lot further 😊😊 Quite often, fundamentalist flamers show up to unload a barrage. These people never respond to questions or objections, but only wish to hear themselves talk. It's much easier to make generalized, unsubstantiated claims than it is to actually track down the facts. Especially when the "facts" you claim are proven to be non-existent. 'Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.' John 7:24" "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." (Proverbs 18:2) Proverbs 10:18 The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool. Dave Hunt Most ecclesiastical historians agree his work isnt often accurate. In other words, you are simply reading propaganda. Not that you seem to have a particular bias (sarcasm). I am in awe of your arrogance. You sit in judgment, falsely slandering others, always excusing yourself in your self-righteousness. Hate to break it to all my extra holy protestant brethren, but "The mother of harlots" (not the whore) of rev 17 is the city of Jerusalem. Her 2 daughters are Israel and Judah, who played the harlot in their fathers house, her sisters are Sodom, Babylon and Egypt. Try reading the bible. When the Whore falls we read, "'Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you'. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth" (Rev 18:20 and 24). So, the Whore could not be the Catholic Church because 1) it did not exist to kill the old testament prophets and 2) No blood is on the Churches hand with respect to any Apostle. Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27-28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10). Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century and BEFORE. WHO KILLED THE PROPHETS Indeed, Jesus himself could not be any clearer in Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! Rev 17:5 "Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus...." Rev 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.” Rev 18:10 "Alas, alas, the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.” Rev 18:20 "Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints and apostles and prophets! For God has given judgment for you against her.' SO WHO IS BABYLON - THE GREAT CITY MOTHER OF WHORES ANSWER REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY "where also their lord was crucified - JERUSALEM NOT ROME Passages of Revelation pertaining to the whore or the harlot makes sense when it is referring to ancient PAGAN Rome but makes no sense when Fundamentalists try to associate it with modern Rome. The passage says that the Whore will have power over kings. Modern Rome has no power over modern "kings", in fact there are almost no kings left in the world. Nor does the Church (which rests on Vatican hill outside of the 7 hills of Rome) have power over political leaders, otherwise ABORTION, PORNOGRAPHY, and HOMOSEXUALITY with HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE would not be legal in the civilized world. Revelation says that the whore was the center of commerce. (Rev 18:17-19) No economist today will say that modern Rome or the church is a leader in commerce. The US, Japan, etc are. However, ancient Pagan Rome was a leader in commerce. The Vatican is on Vatican hill and outside the 7 hills of Rome that that city is built on. And it MUST be noted the bibles including the KJV translate it not as hill but as mountain. Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. Jerusalem is built on 7 mounts. One source, jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/rev-13.html, lists the seven, and explains a bit more of why some authors list different mountains, and includes a map: 1.) Mount Gared; 2.) Mount Goath; 3.) Mount Acra; 4.) Mount Bezetha; 5.) Mount Moriah; 6.) Mount Ophel; 7.) Mount Zion. The seven mountains upon which Jerusalem was built are (according to wikipedia): Scopus, Nob, Olivet, "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence", "Mount Zion", the "Ophel Mount" and the new "Mount Zion." Or perhaps interpretations are far more complex than the followers of Jack Chick might expect, Who knows? Perhaps the 7 mountains refer to the 7 continents. Perhaps the harlot is in fact apostate Christianity of a protestant variety. It may not hurt to look at all the possibility bu NO ONE should go about insisting that there interpretation against another faith is correct. It is too convoluted with too many possibilities. And no one should contradict scripture in their assertions.

@mattmurdock2868 17 күн бұрын

Matter, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and Roman's. Read these books, and you will quickly understand that none of the teachings from the Catholic church can be found in scripture.

@lW9497 16 күн бұрын

Mary, as a virgin, is also believed by the Catholic Church that she is the ark of God. She must remain pure just as God's ark of the covenant remained pure. Of course, this is ridiculous. But their teachings on Mary is foundational to their entire system.

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and "overshadow" (episkiazo) them. (Exodus 40:34-35, cf. v. 3) The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High "over-shadows" (episkiazo) her. (Luke 1:35) -- David "arose and went" to the hill country of Judah to bring up "the ark of God." (2 Samuel 6:2) Mary "arose and went" into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth. (Luke 1:39) -- David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" (2 Samuel 6:9) Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43) -- David "leaped" before the Ark as it was brought in "with shouting." 2 Samuel 6:15-16) John "leaped" in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice and Elizabeth cried "with a loud shout." (Luke 1:41-42) -- The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, "three months." (2 Samuel 6:11) Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth's house, "three months." (Luke 1:56)

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

@ByzantiumArchon WOW that's good.

@ByzantiumArchon 3 күн бұрын

@@rayeemon Amen, brother. The Church knows what She’s teaching. Here’s Mary’s assumption: “Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.”“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭11‬:‭19‬; 12:1-2

@aljay2955 16 күн бұрын

Another wonderful video. You have a brilliant way of exposing these false teachings by using the Bible.

@HelioTropium-yi6dj 6 күн бұрын

When someone says there is salvation outside the Church which Christ founded, RED FLAG!!

@summerfi 3 күн бұрын

With all respect and kindness, I disagree with your statement. Salvation is by the grace of God through the sacrifice of his son Jesus, not through the church. The thief on the cross beside Jesus was saved, yet he never knew a church. Scripture says God's creation bears witness to his greatness. No one has an excuse, because even the stars attest to his presence.

@HelioTropium-yi6dj 2 күн бұрын

@@summerfi why do you think Christ founded His Church and of what nature was it?

@user-dn3qf3nf3y 13 күн бұрын

Jesus: You and Tovia Singer keep poking around where you don't belong! Jesus says to the guy on in this video

@rhondak4940 17 күн бұрын

Solid. 👍T.Y. 😇

@johndavid3474 16 күн бұрын

“In the last days knowledge shall increase”

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

When been in the last days since Pentecost…

@johndavid3474 15 күн бұрын

@@ByzantiumArchon Knowledge shall increase when we have come to the lord's truth. That is knowledge of the false trinity, saints which have not yet ascended. Jesus mother Mary --- asleep. No flesh nor souls are currently in heaven apart from Jesus Christ.

@ByzantiumArchon 15 күн бұрын

@@johndavid3474 You’re admitting to me you have no clue what’s in the Bible, without admitting it… Let Christ, Himself, rebuke you: ”And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? *He is not God of the dead, **_but of the living;_** you are quite wrong.”* ‭‭Mark‬ ‭12‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭ ”and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, *_and to the spirits of just men made perfect,“_* ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12‬:‭23‬ ”When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.“ ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭ ”And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus.“ ‭‭Mark‬ ‭9‬:‭4‬ ‭ ”And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;“ ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭5‬:‭8‬ ‭

@sillythewanderer4221 11 күн бұрын

@@johndavid3474what about what Christ said to the repentant thief “this day you will be with me in Paradise ”?

@johndavid3474 11 күн бұрын

@@sillythewanderer4221 Thank you for asking this question dear friend. In order to answer this question properly, we must look at the Greek language. “Sentence punctuation was invented several centuries after the time of Christ. The oldest copies of both the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament are written with no punctuation.” Therefore when we look at Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise.” It can read in two ways First Truly I tell you or Truly I tell you today It seems that the interpreter chose to place it after you, instead of after today, due to confirmation bias. Notice that when the comma is placed after today, then this passage has a different meaning. So which one is it ? "I say to you today" is a hebrew idiom used to express certainty. Therefore the comma should be placed after today. God Bless You

@sivanaidu6819 16 күн бұрын

Great job, thank you for rightly dividing the Word of God.

@goldenspoon87 16 күн бұрын

Good to hear you link this back to classical Protestant claims rather than just bashing RC/EO doctrine. Sola scruptura indeed. We should honor the authorities God has placed in our lives - Pastors, Priests, Bishops - but only Scripture is infallible.

@sillythewanderer4221 11 күн бұрын

If this is the teaching of the reformers, then why do both Luther and Calvin confirm the perpetual virginity?

@sillythewanderer4221 11 күн бұрын

If this is the teaching of the reformers, then why do both Luther and Calvin confirm the perpetual virginity?

@goldenspoon87 11 күн бұрын

@@sillythewanderer4221 as a matter of opinion, anyone is free to come to conclusions about Mary. But we fundamentally believe it is not a matter worth anathematizing

@tpoy1274 15 күн бұрын

Those passages from Matthew do not suggest that Mary did not remain a virgin. Matthew in chapter 1:24-25 is not referring forward to Mary and Joseph’s future conjugal relations. He’s referring back to the prophecy of Isaiah (1:22-23) that the virgin shall conceive “and bear.” According to prophecy Mary would conceive as a virgin and bear (deliver the child) as a virgin and therefore Matthew’s point is that Joseph had no relations with her that would’ve conflicted with that prophecy. The reference to the brothers in 12:46 is most likely a reference to older men than Jesus because at that time and place younger brothers would not have publicly detracted from their elders, which would have included older siblings. If those men are older and they are the sons of Mary, then we have a more serious problem. “James and Joseph” (Matthew 12:55-56) proves the opposite of what’s claimed here because we know from another part of the gospels (Matthew 27:55-56) that those were the sons of another Mary. The first two named so-call siblings are in fact not siblings. That settles the question of the rest of the list. Also, if the Apostle John took Mary into his care, as opposed to Jesus’ alleged siblings, then they would have been violating the commandment to honor their father and mother. Jesus would not have commanded his brothers, much less his apostles, to violate the law. Besides all of this, why is Mary so profoundly confused at the angel’s saying that she would conceive a son? (Luke 1:34) She’s a married woman. What’s the confusion, unless she does not expect to lose her virginity, even as a married woman? Why is she even a virgin as a married woman to begin with? Why is Joseph protecting her virginity to begin with? He’s her husband. He has rights under the law to sexual relations with her even when she’s pregnant. It’s not like that would have physically or metaphysically impeded the Incarnation. Denying her perpetual virginity makes the Scriptures say things that make far less sense than if they assumed her permanent virginity. This points to the continuity between what the Scriptures take for granted and what the early Christians always believed about Mary remaining a virgin.

@hopelove7820 Күн бұрын

Thank you brother and God bless you ❤️

@randycarson9812 12 күн бұрын

Why is it that scripture refers to "brothers and sisters" of Jesus but NEVER refers to them as "sons and daughters of Mary? Simple, these were not Mary's children. They were cousins or more distant relations. Here is supporting evidence from scripture: In the biblical narrative, Abraham and Lot were not biological brothers but rather uncle and nephew. However, the term "brother" is used to describe their close familial relationship, which was common in ancient Hebrew culture where "brother" could refer to kinsmen or close relatives. This usage was likely due to the absence of a distinct word for "cousin" in the Aramaic language, the language spoken by Abraham and his descendants. Therefore, the term "brother" was used for simplicity and to denote their close kinship ties.

@ulynvanzyl8474 17 күн бұрын

Im not Roman Catholic and dont support their views and believes, however, there is an Pseudopigrapha book called “ The history of Joseph the carpenter” which possibly explains a lot of whats being questioned here. Use it, dont use it

@ZachariahMorningstar 17 күн бұрын

As a Catholic when this concept is ever discussed I always think about the movie Dogma and what the Chris Rock character said quote to believe a married couple didn't get down that's just plain gullibility unquote

@MrCarlosVillasenor 13 күн бұрын

I agree, why would Jesus deny the marriage of Mary and Joseph by denying them sexual relations, I mean they were married, they loved eachother. I wonder why the Catholic Church done this🤔. If Mary was a virgin til her death it was be very very clear.

@El_Varon_ 12 күн бұрын

Hi, Catholic Here, May God bless you☺️ and this is “my” response :D 1. Answer to Matthew 1:24-25: Matthew and the Claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary have other children? Exodus 13:1-2 Reveals something very important about the first born in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’” The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him. 2. Until then: Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples: 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?) 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?) 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.”) In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born. The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.” Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou. Now one last thing you miss, this passage Matthew 1:18-19: "This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, *he had in mind to divorce her quietly."* Now Before you say I take this verse out of context, let read the context :D In the passage from Matthew 1:18-19, Joseph had planned to divorce Mary quietly after discovering her pregnancy, but he had not actually divorced her yet when the angel intervened. The angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and reassured him of the miraculous nature of Mary's pregnancy, instructing him to take Mary as his wife, which he did. So, while Joseph had intended to divorce Mary, he ultimately did not go through with it.(Matthew 1:20-21) Now after this Joseph took Mary as his wife(Matthew 1:24) but for two reasons: Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne. Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus. Now about Matthew 12:46-50 You take way out of context that verse(no offense) the verse indeed says “Here are My Mother and Brothers!” But it Laters says “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” indicating very directly that they are *spiritually* there brothers and sisters and mother, Just like you am I if we follow Jesus commands we are his brothers, remember the phrase “We are Brothers in Christ” am I’m going to speak more about this. 3. Let speak about the “brothers and sisters” stuff: You say that the examples of the world “brother” come just from the Old Testament, but that is a lie, the don’t come just from the old testament but also the new testament, I remind you of the phrase “We all are brothers in Christ” obviously not biologically but Spiritually; Matthew 23:8, Romans 8:29, Hebrew 2:11, Now about the Matthew 13:54-57 lets speak about it, you seen to take out of context that verse way too much(no offense) because I don’t think you are aware but all those “Brothers” you say have there own mother you realize that? James and Joses, read Matthew 27:56, this is obviously referring to Mary Magdalene not The Mary of Christ, and before you say they are the same I suggest you to read Matthew 28:1-10, also they are known to be the sons of Zebedee’s u can read it in that same passage(27:56)Now what about Simon?Even though as far as I know the bible doesn’t state the name of Simon father or Mother, it says something more interesting, if you read Mark 3:18 it describe Simon as Simon the Canaanite, and this is a problem for you because Jesus Christ while Jesus Is know as Jesus of Nazareth, and that makes it impossible to say that Simon is brother of Jesus, because is Known as Simon the Canaanite not Simon the Nazareth or Simon the Galilean. Now the last one Judas, let read Jude 1:1: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:" literally brother of James, and James is son of Mary Magdalena and Zebedee’s. With all this says, I just prove you that in the new testament the word “brother” is also use to refer as spiritual brother or other context that ls not just biological brothers 4. Now about the Sisters To be clear, this was not an issue at the time of the Protestant Reformation, as John Calvin, Martin Luther and others defended Church teaching in this regard. Which ironically means that modern Protestants have developed a doctrinal tradition that departs from what their religious forebears held. Leaving that aside, in the bible you came also find how the world sister is also use as spiritual sisters examples of this are: 1 Timothy 5:2 “Older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity”(the context of this verse is that Paul instructs Timothy on how to treat different groups within the church, including older women, whom he refers to as "mothers" and "sisters," implying a spiritual relationship : "Treat older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, with all purity.) other one is Romans 16:1-2 Paul refers to Phoebe as "our sister," highlighting her position within the Christian community: "I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. Receive her into the Lord, in a manner worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she needs from you; because she has helped many and myself." The world sister, also if Jesus had sisters why are they not mentioned later in the bible? Once again “For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” 5.Now it is quite ironic and contradictory to me that you take out The Psalms (69:8-10) because you had mentioned that all the examples of the word "brother" (in the spiritual context) are all from the Old Testament, but then you take out a verse from the Old Testament testament (Psalms 69:8-10) to justify that Jesus was going to have brothers (even though I previously specified that it was spiritual and I verified it with the Bible itself and also did my research) it is as if you were using that verse at your convenience (no offense) To clarify one thing, the Bible uses metaphors and symbolism a lot and if we add to that the different meaning in words, this proves even more that Jesus did not have biological brothers, the prophecy of the Psalms was fulfilled because Jesus did have brothers, but not biologically but spiritually you can read the explanation again. I don’t mean to offend anyone by this, I just like to show the truth :D May God bless you all☺️

@SpiritLevel888 11 күн бұрын

Nah sorry. That's Catholic bias all over. Too many fall for Roman Catholic propaganda; but the RCC we know bears no relation or resemblance to the churches of the 1st-2nd centuries. Roman Cathilicism ain't true christianity, it's a syncretic PAGAN religion garishly disguised as christian. The fact that they worship before GRAVEN IMAGES depicting a *female deity* CLEARLY marks it PAGAN. The "Queen of Heaven" is the "goddess" mentioned in Jeremiah 44. Scripture CLEARLY tells us Jesus had half brothers and sisters. After Jesus, Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, siring more children the natural way - and there's NOTHING wrong with that.

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

@SpiritLevel888 Disagree. Jesus who is alive spiritualally in the Catholic Church, told us specifically of the offensive that his heart weeps. In the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the belief that Mary was not a Virgin is one of the 7 offenses. The Catholic Church is Sacred Scripture and includes Sacred Tradtion.

@robm6772 3 күн бұрын

You’re a Catholic, Catholics always like to twist the Bible to meet their needs. Don’t mean to offend but, it doesn’t stand up to God’s word.

@laurad2932 16 күн бұрын

Please address other false teachings surrounding Mary: her immaculate conception and her assumption into Heaven. They are tied together, because if the RCC would admit she died, there’s no way she could have been born without sin. Born with a sin nature, we are all under the curse of physical death.

@xxxs8309 16 күн бұрын

Then how do you explain John 19:25,"his mother's Sister,Mary wife of Clopas",surely Mary's biological sister could not have been named Mary also?

@randycarson9812 15 күн бұрын

Error #2: Brothers and Sisters > the Cousins or Kinfolk of Jesus The New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms intrude into the Greek text. For example, Simon is called “Cephas” which is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word, “kepha” which means “rock”. Similarly, blood-relatives who were actually cousins were still referred to as “brothers” because of the limitation of the Aramaic lexicon. The facts concerning Jesus’ “brothers” are: 1. Aramaic contains no word for cousin. 2. Consequently, kinsmen (and non-blood relatives) were therefore referred to as “brothers” (adelphos) or “sisters” (adelphe). 3. Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” are not necessarily other children of Mary. 4. Therefore, the fact that the Bible refers to people whose actual relation to Jesus is uncertain cannot be used to prove that Mary was not ever-virgin. By the way, logic dictates that the 120 "brothers and sisters" in Acts 1:16 did not have the same mother; otherwise, Mary would have been perpetually pregnant instead! Positively stated, we can with certainty that Jesus had adelphoi who were relatives or kinsmen, but we cannot say that the scriptures teach that Mary had other children.

@fieldmarshal763 17 күн бұрын

Come to think of it, of what relevance is it to my salvation if Mary had just Jesus or had more children after Christ? None whatsoever! I see this debate as a complete distraction and waste of time exactly the way i see praying to Mary to pray for us. All i need to know is that Mary is Blessed and would be called Blessed to tilll the day of resurrection because the Bible says so!

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

The reason why you think this way is because you have no desire to see Catholics get saved. If you did have that desire you would know that if you can undermine the official teachings of the Catholic church then people will be open to questioning the Catholic church further.

@fieldmarshal763 16 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblically You're incorrect. I have a desire for ALL not just the Catholics to get saved. I just don't believe that Mary having or not having children after Christ has any bearing on one's salvation. I would rather concern myself on salvation threatening doctrines of any group. However, for educational purposes, I listen and enjoy the video. But would not engage a Catholic on this topic in a debate.

@lz4217 17 күн бұрын

True. Also when spoke in the Old testament as given an example in your video from their study bible, we know that they are not their brothers since it is explained what they really are, for an example Lot. But for Jesus' brothers we never hear that they are truly his cousins for an example.

@andrewpatton5114 17 күн бұрын

If they were sons of Joseph by another wife, they would still truly be called brothers.

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

The word just means male relative, so if it doesn't specify. It's up to interpretation.

@lz4217 17 күн бұрын

@@KillerofGods the word means brother

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

@@lz4217 Which verse were we talking about, I could be confused.

@lz4217 16 күн бұрын

@@KillerofGods the verse where it says Jesus had brothers

@randycarson9812 11 күн бұрын

Scripture, the writings of the Early Church Fathers and even the Protestant Reformers themselves all support the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This is a good topic to bring up with a "Bible Only" Christian because if you can show them that the teaching of their "church" (or lack thereof) is wrong then you can get them to start questioning the other things their church is teaching. This could be the crack that breaches the dam can causes them to completely question and maybe even return to the Catholic Church - the true Church promised by Jesus and built upon Peter the Rock. (cf Mt 16:18-19)

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

You are absolutely correct. I'll be using that when people get stuff wrong about the Queen

@formicapple2 17 күн бұрын

Exactly correct.

@catholictruth102 17 күн бұрын

@vampyresgraveyard3307 15 күн бұрын

Mathew chapter 1:24 is talking about before not after

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

This is utter most blasphemy and an insult to Jesus Christ himself. To insult his mother is to insult him aswell If you truly believe Jesus can do all things. Then you can believe that he would give people the grace to see the offense to him him and his mother even if that graces is given after the bible was created! In the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart devotion that grace was given. And it included the offensive idea, that Mary the mother of Jesus was not a perpetual virgin. To love Jesus means to love what he loved. He loved his mother. Which he gave to you and me. She loves us and is our spiritual mother who continaually prays and interceeds for us like she did in the Wedding of Cana

@michaelnewzealand1888 17 күн бұрын

5 Verses from Matthew chapter 1 that show that Mary was a virgin. Look at verses 16, 18, 20, 22 and 25. In verse 25 it says "but he did not consumate their marriage until she gave birth to her son and he gave him the name Jesus". So after Jesus was born the marriage was consummated meaning that Mary was no longer a virgin. This is highlighted by the fact that she had children. At least four other boys and some daughters too. It would be very unusual if Joseph married a wife and then did not sleep with her. He did not sleep with her until she had given birth to Jesus because what was conceived in her was from the holy spirit and she was pregnant.

@user-pl7si5pn5k 17 күн бұрын

What does consummating a marriage mean to you? It actually means having sex. You cannot escape that. It specifically states that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus. Otherwise the passage there makes no sense.

@KillerofGods 17 күн бұрын

Uh, the word until doesn't mean it ceases to be to that point in Greek and Hebrew. I know it is implied so in English, but this connotation doesn't exist in other languages.

@michaelnewzealand1888 16 күн бұрын

@@user-pl7si5pn5k Yes that is exactly what I meant, she was a virgin prior to Jesus being born and then not so afterward.

@GoodPicture-pg5qm 7 күн бұрын

This guy has no credentials concerning the Bible. He doesn't think they're important. Listen to him at your own risk.

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

There was this Priest that said something along the lines of if you read the bible on your own (referring to independent bible studies outside the guise of the Catholic church) you will start your own religion. If you don't believe him, ask all the other 40,000 denominations of Protestant Christians.

@filibuster_jpr 17 күн бұрын

Mary Jesus Mother was there near the cross witnessing and when the other thieves asked directly to Jesus to remember him, but why Jesus, Mary was there also she's the mother and she can help him get a better favor for Jesus to remember him? 🤔🤔🤔

@nicklopez8004 17 күн бұрын

Jesus is the messiah cause Jesus fullfilled over 300 prophecies that were told about him in the old testament and here’s some verses as to what Jesus response was to someone who called his mother Blessed: Luke 11:27-28 27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

@filibuster_jpr 17 күн бұрын

❤️

@buddy_132 16 күн бұрын

A woman who also sinned? No way can she help anymore then you or I can.

@rochelleb9843 16 күн бұрын

This is why we have to study to show ourselves approved...and with knowledge gain understanding. I wish we had Bible expository teaching at my church. I've been a member for over 40 years and have NEVER been taught the Bible as you teach it. I didn't even know there are so many scriptures acknowledging Jesus is God until I started following you and a couple other channels. Smh not good!

@Rooikat 8 күн бұрын

Im not catholic or orthodox, so I'm still a bit lost as to why Mary being a virgin her whole life even became a thing.

@piotrjozwiak7951 12 күн бұрын

The Apostles would like to speak a word with you If what you are saying was a thing, there would be more sources about it. Yet the Apostolic Tradition says Jesus was Mary's only son since the very beginning

@domen6398 17 күн бұрын

Seriousquestion, do you believe such 'heretical' beliefs will send catholics and orthodox' to hell?

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

Not this particular one but their denial of salvation by faith apart from works and their idolatry will send them to hell.

@domen6398 16 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblically well if you believe but don't make an effort to do works, won't that send you to hell?

@catholictruth102 16 күн бұрын

According to Paul’s list of vices, those who believe in heresies will be sent to hell. *Galatians 5:19-21* “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions (αἱρέσεις/haireseis), envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” It’s notable that this warning was written to true believers in Christ, those whom Paul called all “sons of God” in Galatians 3:26. The Greek word rendered “divisions” is used elsewhere to refer to heresies which men introduce into the faith. Like in *2 Peter 2:1* for example, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies (αἱρέσεις/haireseis), even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” Thus both Paul and Peter taught that those who fall into heresy will not inherit the kingdom of God. This is why it’s pivotal to follow the church, which scripture calls the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) instead of relying on your own understanding concerning scripture. God bless!

@vampyresgraveyard3307 15 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblically Catholic teaching is Grace thru faith for salvation

@maksim3417 14 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblicallyyour belief didn't exist till 16th century so are all of those people in hell now? It's sad how ignorant you are

@1962mrpaul 17 күн бұрын

Martin Luther: “Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” “He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb.. .This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin"

@Adam-zn9yh 15 күн бұрын

That's not true word of God over and over shows they were his brothers mark 6/3 don't let others interpret sripture fkr yiu ask the holy spirit to help you

@1962mrpaul 13 күн бұрын

@Adam-zn9yh The Greek words translated as “brothers/sisters” can mean cousins, uncles, nephews, et cetera. For example, Abraham and Lot are called “brothers” in Genesis 13:8 and they were actually uncle and nephew. Luke 1:34 makes clear that Mary had taken a life-long vow of virginity.

@AnakinSkywalker-mm6ge 12 күн бұрын

(To Matthew 1:24-25) "Until", both in English and in Greek, can mean up to a certain point, but not after. Until, but not after. Or it can just mean, to this point. In First Corinthians, we’re told that Jesus must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. Does that mean Jesus doesn’t reign after his enemies are put under his feet? No, until doesn’t mean that. So assuming that until always means only until this point and then not after, is applying a connotation of until that it doesn’t necessarily hold here. It can mean that, but contextually it often doesn’t. (4:27 - 5:12) Exactly. You're just coping by saying that somehow cousins aren't as dear as brothers so somehow the point Jesus is making is moot? There are plenty of verses that support the possibility that brother can mean cousin in the context of the ancient Jewish community which Jesus was a part of but because they're "Old Testament" they aren't valid? Well guess what, the entire Bible including the Old Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit so you can't just dismiss it with a wave of the hand. (To Psalm 69:8-10) You actually buried yourself here because Jesus tells us who his mother and his brothers are in Matthew 1:24-25 which you quoted, that is those who do the will of His Father in Heaven. So his Mother's sons would also be those that do the will of His Father in Heaven. Catholics also understand Mary to be the mother of the Church so all members of the Church would likewise be her children.

@randycarson9812 15 күн бұрын

The Protoevangelium of James (ca. AD120) Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves-Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli-honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants. Proto-evangelium of James "And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Proto-evangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]). "And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8-9). "And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15). "And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).

@randycarson9812 15 күн бұрын

The Reverence Theory This view holds that Joseph, already informed of the divine miracle within Mary (Matthew 1:18), considered himself unworthy to be part of God’s work in this unusual situation (cf. Lk 5:8; 7:6). His resolve to separate quietly from Mary is thus seen as a reverent and discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. Notably, the expression “to expose her to public disgrace” is weaker in Greek than in the translation: it means that Joseph did not wish to “exhibit” Mary in a public way. The angelic announcement in Matthew 1:20, then, directs Joseph to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Davidic Messiah. This view more aptly aligns Joseph’s righteousness with his intentions. (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Study Bible, 18).

@user-fp3fw3zc9i 17 күн бұрын

i am sorry for you!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!

@mikem3789 17 күн бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

@catholictruth102 17 күн бұрын

@mikem3789 17 күн бұрын

@@catholictruth102 you need to read ‘A woman rides the beast’ by Dave Hunt. I pray your eyes will be opened before it’s too late.🙏

@hopelove7820 Күн бұрын

Virgin Mary is our mother to everyone that loves her , she is given to us as a mother through John the one Jesus Christ loved deeply! Woman her is your son and to the disciple her is your mother ❤️ from that day she lived with John as real mother and son relationship!

@deanhoward4128 16 күн бұрын

Mary was a virgin until she became pregnant with Jesus; a woman is not considered a virgin if she has given birth to a child,regardless of how the child was conceived; immaculate, by the Spirit of God,or by a human being...the point being a " virgin" is a woman is a female that hasn't given birth to a child..Mary had given birth to a human child named Jesus...He was a human by any measurement..Yes He was still God, but he was born just as all humans are born biologically! Without getting too graphic here, Jesus had an umbilical cord & placenta & was delivered just as you & I were. Mary was no longer a virgin after giving birth! And you are correct about Jesus having biological half brothers & sisters, Joseph being the father of these siblings! & f.y.i. Im a Baptist!

@saintanthonythegreatorthod8872 15 күн бұрын

What you say here is called Nestorianism, a heresy condemned by the church fathers in the 4th century.

@heroevulgar 13 күн бұрын

James appears as the brother of Jesus, and brother of Judas, Joseph, and Simon. The letter to the Galatians mentions a James, the brother of the Lord (1:18). Since it speaks of Jerusalem, it must be James the Bishop. This one, called the lesser, as Mark says (6:3), was at the same time an apostle of Christ. Since Jesus only had two called James; and we know that one is the son of Zebedee, and died by Herod; this other must be the son of Alphaeus. Luke (16:6) shows us that James, the son of Alphaeus, is the brother of Judas Thaddeus. And we know that this Judas was the author of the Letter of Jude, which says: "Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (Jude 1:1). We see that Judas presents himself as the brother of James. In Matthew 13, a Judas and a James appear as brothers of Jesus. But in his letter, Judas proclaims himself the brother of James BUT NOT of Jesus, whom he calls servant. From the above, we conclude that the Judas who appears in Matthew 13 is the author of the letter, and he does not proclaim himself as the brother of Jesus, while he does of James, who also appears as the brother of Jesus, and is the one Paul saw in Jerusalem, author of the Letter of James. The name of Alphaeus, his father, is in Aramaic the translation of Cleopas in Greek. This demonstrates that: The Mary who appears on the cross as the mother of James and Joseph is the same one who appears as the wife of Cleopas. Cleopas is the same as Thaddeus, therefore Judas is also the brother of James and Joseph, who appear in Matthew. And it is corroborated in the letter of Judas, where he mentions his brother James, but it is not said the same of Jesus. Additionally, the Simon mentioned appears in (Mt 10:3) and (Acts 1:13). Since the mother of these names is the sister of the Virgin Mary, they are relatives of Jesus, but not direct blood brothers. Understanding that among the Jews there were no words for relatives, it is not wrong to call these cousins of Jesus brothers.

@andrewcrossman2165 17 күн бұрын

Marriage bed is undefiled

@delgande 10 күн бұрын

By the Sorrow of Our Lady, what blasphemy. Repent of this please. St Mary the Theotokos pray for us.....

@rayeemon 3 күн бұрын

He even used the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion image as the thumbnail too! Like come on! The devotion itself debunks this idea!

@delgande 3 күн бұрын

@@rayeemon prots think their 21st century understanding, tainted by modernity, is better than the 2000 year understanding of the Church, the Father's, the Apostles, and, ironically, even the early Reformers, since they all believed in St Mary's perpetual virginity

@NATAR160 17 күн бұрын

What was the "until" doing in Mary's case if she never had other children n why call it first born son? If the writer didn't have benefit of hindsight but was just following them, recording the event as it unfolds, we may say he didn't know Mary was going to be a virgin forever, bc he didn't have the benefit of knowing that beforehand. But he was recording these events in hindsight(as sth that's already happened) so why use "first born son" and not "only son" or just "son" and why use "until" when the writer wd hv known before the writing, that Mary didn't have other children but remained a virgin forever. Also, if I was recording events of a virgin who gave birth, if that virgin remained a virgin forever, why wd I omit that from my writing since I was recording the events after the fact???

@lifethroughromans8295 13 күн бұрын

@NATAR - That until and first born in Matthew 1: 24-25 is a powerful combination that proves Mary had more than one child after Jesus' birth. And, the "knowing" part from husband to wife Indicates Joseph and Mary had sex after the Lord Jesus' birth.

@dhughes6357 17 күн бұрын

Amen to that. Have you heard of Jay Dyer? He is an orthodox Christian, would love to hear you debate him.

@banzakidimye348 17 күн бұрын

Other thing is that Roman Catholic and Orthodox believe that Mary remained a virgin in a technically, physical sense even as she gave borth to Jesus. Meaning that her hymen remained unbroken. Either Jesus was "translated" from out of Mary's womb into her arms.....or that Jesus was born in some other miraculous way.

@randycarson9812 15 күн бұрын

Error #3: If Psalm 69 Proves Mary had Sons, then Jesus is a Sinner If you are going to insist on one-to-one fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and types, then you have a real problem in Psalm 69:5-6. Just three verses before the Psalmist speaks of his “mother’s sons,” he also says, "Oh God, you know my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you. Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me. O Lord God of hosts; let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me." In this text, King David is, no doubt, thinking of his famous sins as well as the general “sin which clings so closely” to us in our fallen state (Heb. 12:1). But we don’t want to say Jesus must have had sin in his life because of what’s here in this messianic psalm. By no means!

@GoodPicture-pg5qm 7 күн бұрын

Nobody can prove from the Scriptures that Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.The scripture as well as Church Tradition points that She is a Perpetual Virgin

@iThinkBiblically 7 күн бұрын

Show me in the scriptures where it points to Mary’s perpetual virginity. Show me a tradition, with evidence that it goes back to the apostles, that says Mary was a perpetual virgin.

@GoodPicture-pg5qm 6 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblically It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this-'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'-except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this-'it shall be shut for evermore'-but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"

@GoodPicture-pg5qm 6 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblically www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

@GoodPicture-pg5qm 6 күн бұрын

@@iThinkBiblically www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

@randycarson9812 2 күн бұрын

*Ever-Virgin Proved from Scripture: Herod, Herodias, Philip and John the Baptist* In scripture, we cannot assume that just because the text uses the word “brother” or “sister”, the two people in question had the same mother. For example, John the Baptist confronts Herod who had married Herodias, the wife of Herod’s “brother” Philip. But Herod and Philip did not have the same mother; their father had two different wives. Yet, scripture refers to them as “brothers” and not “step-brothers”. This is relevant because no verse of scripture proves that Jesus had brothers and sisters who came from Mary’s womb. For example, Mark writes: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3) The reason for this curiosity is that the “brothers and sisters” were actually cousins or kinsmen, and this view is supported by the fact that Aramaic has no word for “cousin”. Abraham and Lot, for example, are referred to as “brothers” even though that was not their actual biological relationship. Although the New Testament was written in Greek, many Aramaic idioms made their way into the books and letters of scripture. Notice carefully that Mark refers to the "brothers and sisters" _of Jesus_ but *NOT* to “sons and daughters'' _of Mary?_ Two of the “brothers” Mark mentions, James and Joses, are later described as the sons of another Mary (cf. Mk 15:40,47)-likely, Mary, the wife of Clopas (cf. Jn 19:25; Lk 24:18). Thus, they are the sons of Mary and Clopas, who was Joseph’s brother. Thus, they were cousins of Jesus who was the adopted son of Joseph, the brother of Clopas.

@LokiWolfe1985 17 күн бұрын

"Mary gave birth to Jesus without knowing a man's touch- this is true. But to think that a married couple never got down, well that's just downright gullibility!" -Rufus the thirteenth apostle, _DOGMA_

@user-zb4wh3ks2e 17 күн бұрын

If Mary was not a virgin forever then she is not the "virgin" Mary. The "Virgin Mary" is the queen of heaven. She is the mother of the christian Jesus you believe in. *2 Corinthians 11:4 - For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.*

@cronosotto7997 17 күн бұрын

Be wise, another jesus is the one that have nothing to do with the one in the bible, when your mother put you to birth where she still Virgin ? 😏

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

That's right, the Roman Catholic "Mary" is not the same as the "Mary" in the bible.

@de1623 16 күн бұрын

"queen of heaven"?? Are you in the occult?

@kittensanddaisies5615 15 күн бұрын

Mary is not the queen of heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that.

@maksim3417 14 күн бұрын

Not everything is in the Bible John 21:25. In those times, queen was the mother of the king. Jesus is king. Mary is his mother. Mary = queen@@kittensanddaisies5615

@markwallace1505 15 күн бұрын

If Mary was a forever virgin then she was never married to Jospeh. Jewish tradition held that only by consummation was the marriage official.

@DylanEmelio-oz5rd 17 күн бұрын

I’m not whether to believe you just happened to missed or you being wilfully dishonest, but you made a huge error right in the beginning of your video. You said there was no note attached to Mt 1:25 in the orthodox study Bible. Well I have one, and yes there is a note attached to 1:25. It explains that the word till does not always mean a change occurred after but that it eternally continued, it gives multiple examples of this throughout the scriptures in the note you just happened to miss. Mary remained a virgin her entire life

@iThinkBiblically 17 күн бұрын

I don't know how I missed that note... I've edited that part out of the video. If I had realized it was there I would have responded by pointing out that the word "till" in the NT primarily means "up till" (maybe always). Good examples are Matthew 1:17, 2:9, 2:13, 2:15 etc. If you check out these examples it will become pretty clear.

@jjh2472 16 күн бұрын

Why are all us followers of Christ fighting each other in the comments? Can’t we just love each other in peace?

@iThinkBiblically 16 күн бұрын

Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Its a harlot church filled with idolatry.

@Adam-zn9yh 15 күн бұрын

I agree we should but also if there is false teachings they need to be shown, that is love to guide people in the word of God, it's like when they said you coukd have sins forgiven paying money it was wrong and now they don't do that for it was called out, also takes away from the true gospel only by the blood of jesus are we saved. So we should get on but also help one another in the faith

@randycarson9812 15 күн бұрын

Error #1: Until - Until does NOT mean that an action ceased Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that "until" doesn't actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word "until" because that word implies nothing...and other verses in scripture PROVE that point. Genesis 8:7 The raven "did not return TILL the waters were dried up..." -Did the raven ever return? Deuteronomy 34:6 No one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" -But we know that no one has known it since that day either. Luke 1:80 "And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel." -The Greek word translated "until" in this passage is [I]heos[/I], the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2). So, "until" in this passage does not mean he stopped living in the desert. 1 Timothy 6:14 "....that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..." -May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns? Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

@randycarson9812 15 күн бұрын

@MattWillEast 16 күн бұрын

Very cool

@albertd.6179 11 күн бұрын

I am truly amazed at this video. This gentleman has not come up with any new argument in favour of his claims that Mary was not a virgin forever. Matthew 1:25 has a greater chance of proving his claims, but it is not decisive. The word 'until' can be interpreted in two ways. The references to brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels are a hopeless case for you. There are quite a few passages in the Gospels which identify the actual mother of the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus, who is also called Mary but not the Mary, Mother of Jesus. This is a clinching evidence that Mary had only one Son and none else.