Top Objections to Mary's Perpetual Virginity [REBUTTED]

[@CatholicElectrician]

When Jesus is on the cross, he tells John to take Mary into his house and care for her. This would have been the responsibility of her other sons if she had them

[@FROGfish03]

Jesus’s brothers at the time were not believers.

[@noel_112]

​@@FROGfish03Tell me where in the bible...

[@emoore1439]

Yeah I told my dad this but he said that it was because Jesus’s siblings were too scared to watch His crucifixion. Still doesn’t explain why John still took care of Mary long after Jesus’s resurrection and ascension into heaven.

[@MikeOnTheHomestead]

@@FROGfish03 Is that new Protestant dogma?

[@Cklert]

​@FROGfish03 James the Just or James the Brother of Jesus was one of the 12.

[@AveChristusRex789]

I just point out Martin Luther and the other Protestant reformers advocating for Mary’s perpetual virginity. That’s all.

[@CatholicElectrician]

This sounds like a much more effective way to convince the average protestant since they probably just aren’t aware of it

[@GabrielLopez-mo2xo]

I wouldn’t stop there since they will just say that whoever you point to was a flawed man and helped bring people back to the true faith but was ultimately mistaken on the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother. Instead use that as the jumping off point to launch into a larger discussion. When they realize their founders did not believe what they do they will likely point to flawed modern arguments such as what Trent has responded to in which case you can present them or just send them here.

[@DrChaunceyBlevins]

“The Reformers aren’t our ultimate authority! (We just use them to build our entire theological framework etc etc)”

[@AveChristusRex789]

@@GabrielLopez-mo2xo Good idea

[@markrutledge5855]

So what? Luther was a product of his own times. Reformation is a constant need in the church.

[@AnselmInstitute]

The quote from John Chrysostom was extremely helpful and reflects how the Church understood these questions long before the innovations of the Reformers.

[@lefebre27]

I wouldn’t say they had innovations, brother. There are Church Fathers who did not hold to that doctrine as well. The key component of the reformation wasn’t to restore the church. Just to clear up some doctrinal differences that we believe were plaguing the church.

[@AnselmInstitute]

@@lefebre27 I didn't say that you would say anything. I said it. And it is true...brah.

[@melchior2678]

@@lefebre27 so he is your cousin? 0:40

[@kyrptonite1825]

Name Church Fathers who believed in Scripture Alone, Faith Alone, Once Saved Always Saved, that the Mass isn’t Sacrificial, the Eucharist not being truly Present, Baptism not actually saving you, fewer than 7 Sacraments, or Calvinism. You can’t.

[@Greg-n]

​@@lefebre27yeah bro, the reformers just wanted to "clear up" a couple things so they collapsed the sacerdotal system and removed the apostolic paradigm instituted by Christ in order to cover themselves with imputed righteousness... all this resulted in the blasphemous claim that God the Father extinguished His Wrath on Christ during the atonement so we could have Christ's perfect righteousness in the "great exchange". Reformers also adopted the Pelagian doctrine of Original righteousness (justitia originalis) that the gift of Grace was not something "above" or "added" onto man's natural powers (pura naturalia) as the Catholic Church held dogmatically (as the Donum Superadditum, or Supernaturalè) - the reformers instead saw it as "immanent" or "intrinsic" to man (Adam) prior to the fall through the now articulated doctrine of the "Covenant of Works" in the Westminster confession. This Pelagian view (made heretical by the Catholic Church in 529 at the Council of Orange [CANON 19]) is why Calvanists think Catholics are "semi-palagian" - reformers (following Pelagius) merged Nature and Grace prior to the fall... it also forms the basis of their doctrine of "Total Depravity"; that man is so irreparably damaged from the fall that he cannot receive infused righteousness. The reformers needed to "clear up" the scriptural and long held view of infused Grace to institute their "solas" and atomise Christianity to the infallibility of individual interpretation. Yeah... I wouldn't call that innovation at all... degradation maybe.

[@billcynic1815]

"Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." -Martin Luther, _That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew_ "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned." -John Calvin, _Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke,_ vol. 2, sec. 39 "Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity." -John Calvin, _Commentary on John_ (7:3) "I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity." -Huldreich Zwingli, _Mary, Ever Virgin, Mother of God,_ 1524 "I believe…He [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." -John Wesley, _Letter to a Roman Catholic_ “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26-27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” -Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), _Commentary on Matthew_ “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the _ever-virgin_ Mary." -Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373), _Discourses Against Arius_ “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband." -Augustine of Hippo (354-430), _On Heresies_ “But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, _ever-virgin,_ by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man.” -Hippolytus of Rome (170-235), _Against Beron and Helix,_ Fragment 8 Edit: Included the works from which these quotes were drawn from, and added a quote from Hippolytus of Rome.

[@betterhappensdaily]

Where did you find these quotes?

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

I know this is going to sound arrogant… but they were all wrong 😅😂 But thank you for posting these quotes. People should know what they said.

[@rickydettmer2003]

I know this is going to sound arrogant ,,,,,,but do better than “they were all wrong “… 😂😂

[@eddardgreybeard]

​@@toughbiblepassages9082 Feel free to explain how it is you know better than all of them.

[@billcynic1815]

@@betterhappensdaily I've edited the original post for better references

[@lefebre27]

Trent you’re really growing on me brother. As a Protestants I definitely have a lot more respect for Catholicism

[@wordforever117]

As a protestant you really need to clear away all of the utter nonsense spoken about the Catholic faith by anti-Catholic protestants in order to really understand Catholicism. It must be very difficult. So much of what is said about the Church is just completely made up, not merely a misunderstanding.

[@joyhenry-dp8nd]

There are so many people, books, you name it to recommend. But you should check out brant Pitre’s books 1. Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist 2. Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary 3. And also brant Pitre’s KZbin channel. Catjolic answers and pints with aquinus are a couple other good beginning points among many others. :)

[@WIGGER_AESTHETIC_031]

lmao same. Trent might yet convert me (to orthodoxy, because I don't trust papal infallibility)

[@wordforever117]

@@WIGGER_AESTHETIC_031 You trust private interpretation but not the Magisterium of the Church?

[@WIGGER_AESTHETIC_031]

@@wordforever117 I trust some magisterium, actually most of it. my single largest deciding factor would be scripture, but where scripture doesnt give a clear response, the church can be trusted to an extent. My issue is that the church claims that the pope is infallible when making ex cathedra statements, when not even Saint Peter himself was infallible. I am referencing the fact that Paul rebuked him for making the gentiles get circumcisions.

[@jmctigret]

Athanasius strongly defended Mary's virginity after the birth of Jesus

[@cobramcjingleballs]

then he didn't read the bible and believed in pagan beliefs.

[@sebastijan5894]

In all my Catholic education, somehow I have never heard the argument that Mary accepting John as a son is a proof she didn’t have any others to take care of her. It’s brilliant. Also didn’t know that Luther believed in perpetual virginity. Great video. Bless you, Trent.

[@Kenny-mu2xb]

Another good one is Matthew 27:55-56. It mentions Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, as a witness at the cross. The only other time a James and Joseph are mentioned together in Matthew is when Jesus’s brethren are named. Thus, this Mary is the mother of Jesus’s brethren, yet she’s not called Jesus’s own mother. It would be absurd for Matthew to not call this woman Jesus’s mother, unless of course she actually wasn’t His mother. That causes me to believe the mother of Jesus’s brethren was not the same person as the Virgin Mary

[@Cklert]

​@@Kenny-mu2xbSt. Jerome made this argument as well. He identifies her as Mary of Clopas. This is further supported by John 19:25 which shows all 3 Mary's as witnesses to the Cross.

[@seanpermann5570]

Luther believing it doesn’t mean anything either. All men are fallible and capable of error. This proves nothing.

[@hyeminkwun9523]

When the Archangel Gabriel said to Blessed Mother, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son (Luke 1:31)", Blessed Mother asked him, "How shall this be done, because I know not man? (Luke 1:34)". What a strange question, since She was espoused to St. Joseph and, therefore, it would be natural to have children? Her question to Archangel Gabriel clearly shows that both Her and St. Joseph vowed to remain virgins (Numbers 30:4-7), and explains why St. Joseph had that doubt (Matt 1:19). Both Blessed Mother and St. Joseph suffered tremendously before an angel appeared in a dream to St. Joseph (Matt 1:20-21). Blessed Mother knew that St. Joseph was suffering greatly, but could not tell him why she is pregnant, for God told her not to, and trust Him for her justification. The details accounts can be found in Maria Valtorta's Poem of Man-God, Vol. 1.

[@Kenny-mu2xb]

@@hyeminkwun9523 This is also a great argument, one that How to be Christian introduced me to.

[@GabrielLopez-mo2xo]

You know Trent’s not going to be going easy on you when he calls your argument allegedly sophisticated

[@renaldoawes2210]

But he mostly proves his point. 9/10 uses of the word were used in reversal nature and the way its used is clearly an example of reversal language.

[@GranMaese]

@@renaldoawes2210 You didn't watch the video, do you? He proves White is wrong [as always.]

[@teeemm9456]

@@GranMaese He didn't prove anything wrong, he jumped through hoops and held up a weak arguments to try to show that perpetual virginity can't be 100% disproven. And I'll qualify this by saying, I like Trent much more than Dr White. The problem is, the context of Mark is exactly what it reads, that Mary and Joseph got their game on after Jesus was born.

[@GranMaese]

@@teeemm9456 Said no one that upholds intellectual honesty, ever. The whole Christendom believed what Trent simply explained and would have considered White a heretic, since for more than 1800 years that was the norm [even the Reformers believed it]. It was not until recently, relatively speaking, that some protestants, being heretical and deviating from truth, started saying otherwise. Sorry, man, but no one that can read properly would read it that way. Is more than clear that's not the case, but the contrary. And this can be confirmed by other languages translations too.

[@teeemm9456]

@@sonsofpolaris6102 You should use reply to the person you're talking to, makes for better online dialogue. Go re-read where the angel tells Joseph to wed Mary as he originally planned and look up how Jewish people got married back then, and tell us all how they were celibate.

[@jorgen7180]

It always baffles me how 20th-century Protestants pretend to know more about ancient greek than the Founding fathers of the Catholic Church who actually used Greek every day. Even years later, in the Nicene Concil, all who participated spoke and used ancient greek as their standard language. They didn't make mistakes in translation. They knew perfectly well what they were doing.

[@rexweller3759]

Since it is never called the the Catholic Church in the New Testament, one does not have to be a Catholic and can be only a Christian.

[@heimrichmuller9327]

@@rexweller3759 Catholic comes the adjective καθολικός, -κή, -κόν, meaning general or universal. Christ instituted one Church for all men, not necessarly saying that the one vulgarly called "Roman Catholic" is that one, just that the term is sound. I believe even some protestants, and for sure the Eastern Orthodox, argue for the catholicity of their churches.

[@jorgen7180]

@@rexweller3759 🤣🤣🤣🤣 The followers of the Germans never cease to amuse me. The term "Catholic" means "universal" or "inclusive of everyone." Although the specific phrase "Catholic Church" does not appear in the New Testament, the concept of a universal church, encompassing all believers and reaching all parts of the world, is present in the teachings and mission given to the apostles. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 instructs the disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations." This idea supports the concept of a universal (catholic) church. The concept, teachings, and a unified doctrine handed down by the apostles, were very much part of early Christian theology and practice. This is what is meant by "Catholic" in the context of the Church’s name. It is so funny to see that you guys live by Sola Scriptura but pick and choose which Books are included in the New Testament and how to interpret them depending on the German denomination. Sola Scriptura also neglects the role of the apostles and denies apostolic succession.

[@eddardgreybeard]

Exactly. It's like every prot thinks they're the first to read and understand scripture, despite coming at different conclusions from one another.

[@teeemm9456]

Except the Septuagint isn't even a perfect translation and you pretend that modern day there isn't arguments about various grammatical takes and meaning. Just like all the other issues with Catholic doctrine and branches of Protestantism that disagree about things. It's funny how you also pretend that the Catholic church hasn't changed many things over time and in many cases, looks nothing like the early church.

[@jdub3999]

Thank you for always answering and rebutting our Protestant brothers & sisters with respect and charity.

[@cobramcjingleballs]

except he's lying and does not believe bible. galatians 1:19

[@Philip__325]

Awesome video Trent. I used to be a Protestant who believed and made the same arguments as James. I am so happy and grateful that I have become Catholic.

[@cobramcjingleballs]

you need to read the bible and be convicted. galations 1:19, the brother of jesus,. also listed in mathew 13:55 who was not a believer, but became ;leader of church in jerusalem, while roman beliefs started around 700s, after the greeks stopped choosing the bishop or rome.

[@Melynn13]

As someone converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, this was very informative. Thank you for your time.

[@DrSharuMaria]

Judas, James the lesser, Simon and Joseph were the sons of Joseph's elder brother Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Clophas. Jesus says in "The poem of The Man God " to mystic Maria Valtorta....." The last vision clarifies a detail quoted twice in the Gospel by Matthew, a sentence which is repeated twice: “Get up, take the Child and His Mother with you, and escape into Egypt”; “Get up, take the Child and His Mother with you and go back to the land of Israel.” And you saw that Mary was by Herself in Her room with the Child. Mary's virginity after Her delivery and Joseph's chastity have been strongly denied by those who being putrid mud themselves, are not prepared to admit that one like them can be as pure and clear as light. They are wretched people whose souls are so corrupted and their minds so prostituted to the flesh, that they are incapable of thinking that one like them can respect a woman seeing in her not her flesh but her soul, neither can they elevate themselves to live in a supernatural atmosphere, craving not for what is flesh, but only for what is God. Well, I wish to tell those deniers of the most beautiful things, those worms incapable of becoming butterflies, those reptiles covered with the slaver of their own lewdness, incapable of understanding the beauty of a lily, I wish to tell them that Mary was and remained a virgin, and that only Her soul was married to Joseph, exactly as Her spirit was united only to the Spirit of God by Whose deed She conceived Her Only Son: I, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Father and of Mary. This is not a tradition embellished afterwards, out of loving respect for the Blessed Virgin Who was My Mother. It is the truth and has been known since early times. Matthew was not born after centuries. He was a contemporary of Mary. Matthew was not a poor ignorant man brought up in a forest and likely to believe any idle story. He was a clerk in the taxation office, as you would say nowadays, he was an excise man, as we said then. He could see, hear, understand, and tell the truth from the false. Matthew did not hear things reported by third parties. He heard them directly from Mary's lips to Whom he applied for information, prompted by his love for his Master and for the truth.I do not believe that those repudiators of Mary's inviolability will dare think that She may have lied. My own relatives could have given Her the lie, had there been other children: James, Judas, Simon and Joseph were disciples together with Matthew. Therefore Matthew could have easily compared their versions, had there been more than one account. But Matthew does not say: “Get up and take your wife.” He says: “Take His Mother.” Before he says: “A virgin betrothed to Joseph”; “Joseph Her spouse”. Neither those repudiators of Purity should tell Me that it was a way of speaking particular to the Jews, as if to say “wife” was a disgrace. No, deniers of Purity. At the very beginning of the Bible we read: “And he will join himself to his wife.” She is called “companion” up to the moment of the sensual consummation of the marriage, and afterwards she is called “wife” in various circumstances and in different chapters. And these are the expressions referred to the wives of the sons of Adam. And so Sarah is called the “wife” of Abraham: “Sarah your wife”. And: “Take your wife and your two daughters” is said of Lot. And in the book of Ruth it is written: “The Moabitess, the wife of Mahalon”. And in the first book of the Kings it is said: “Elkanah had two wives”. And further on: “Elkanah then had intercourse with his wife Hannah”. And again: “Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife”. And again in the Book of the Kings it is said: “Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, became the wife of David and bore him a son.” And what do you read in the blue book of Tobias, what the Church sings to you at your wedding, to advise you to be holy in your marriage? You read: “Now when Tobias arrived with his wife and his son… ”; and again: “Tobias succeeded in escaping with his son and with his wife.” And in the Gospels, that is in times contemporary with Christ, when therefore they wrote in a modem style of language, as compared to the ancient kind, and therefore no error of transcription could be suspected, it said and just by Matthew in Chapter 22: “… and the first, after marrying his wife died and left his wife to his brother.” And Mark at Chapter 10: “The man who divorces his wife…” And Luke called Elizabeth the wife of Zacharias for four times running, and in the eighth Chapter of his Gospel he says: “Johanna, the wife of Chuza”. As you can see, this name was not a word banished by those who walked in the ways of the Lord, it was not an impure word not worthy of being uttered and least of all written when there was a mention of God and of His wonderful work. And the angel, saying: “The Child and His Mother”, proves to you that Mary was His real Mother. But She was not a wife of Joseph. She remained forever: “The virgin betrothed to Joseph”. And this is the last teaching of the vision. And it is a halo which shines on the heads of Mary and Joseph. The Inviolate Virgin. The just and chaste man. The two lilies amongst whom I grew up, receiving only the perfume of purity".

[@kzbaby2002]

You are spot on. I have read Valtorta. Emmerich and Agreda and no one can have an inkling of the favor given to Mary. She was communicating with God from her mother’s womb. None of us can compare even 1/100 to her holiness. Joseph was her holy spouse and it was her desire to serve him. She told him she had dedicated herself to God and he agreed to live chastely. He also was given so many graces by God. A woman and mother had to have a protector in those days which is why she needed a spouse. Also the child Jesus needed his protection.

[@DrSharuMaria]

@@kzbaby2002 well said, God bless you.

[@GarthDomokos]

James White really hates that he is not the authority on earth.

[@FullDottle]

🤣🤣 #truth

[@cobramcjingleballs]

i think bible trumps both, which says mary is not god and is blashpemy

[@MU-we8hz]

Wel neithers is the pope

[@cobramcjingleballs]

@@MU-we8hz agreed

[@andreeattieh2963]

​@@MU-we8hzthe papacy is a gift from God

[@jscott1622]

This really shouldnt be a Catholic vs Protestant debate, both John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary and Calvin often refers to her as the Blessed Virgin in his writings.

[@gospelfreak5828]

It shouldn't be a debate. Since there is no reason to believe Mary retained her virginity, Catholics and protestants should not believe in it, or make it a dogmatic teaching that she kept her virginity even though it doesn't make sense.

[@haronsmith8974]

@@gospelfreak5828there’s a ton of reason to believe Mary retained her virginity, from sacred tradition and a huge support in early church fathers and from typology.

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@haronsmith8974 Why did they believe in her perpetual virginity? That is what I am concerned with. Without good evidence to believe from scripture or eyewitness testimony, it doesn't make sense to hold a view, even if it is popular. The likelihood the majority of the Church fathers would believe in a flat earth is great. Does their belief on the shape of the earth now have to be correct and inform my view? No. Whatever view the church fathers have needs to be justified either by scripture or eyewitness testimony. Where is the evidence? Everyone keeps claiming there is a ton of evidence, but they just appeal to the fact some church fathers believed it. That is not good evidence and is not very convincing

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@haronsmith8974 What reasons though? What is the evidence? What justifies their claims to her virginity? Did they have eyewitness testimony? What reason is there for me to believe in her virginity other than some people hundreds of years after Mary's death people said "You know what, she probably stayed a virgin." I want good evidence. Not a myth that is mentioned after the Gospel of Peter or Thomas, which we reject btw.

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@haronsmith8974 What is the reason to believe?

[@jonathanw1106]

I think this whole discussion shows the danger of adhering to doctrine which has as its barrier to entry "its not emphatically contradicted by the Bible." While we do not have an explicit denial of Mary's perpetual virginity, this is kind of like a cumulative case that seems to make this quite unlikely. For starters, we do not have any evidence of Joseph having multiple children prior to his engagement to Mary. None of the children accompany their father to Bethlehem or Egypt. None of the children are mentioned at all any Gospel until Jesus was an adult, which is at least probative evidence that they were not born yet. There is no mention of Joseph having been previously married, or being so advanced in age that his children were already adults. In fact, we have good evidence that the children were not significantly older than Jesus since they are all referred to as his contemporaries in the Gospel of John. Jesus entrusting Mary to John's care is not a terribly compelling counterargument, since Jesus often went against established customs and norms of his day. In fact, he explicitly denies Mary and his siblings in Matthew when he points out that it is those who obey the will of the Father that are his brothers, sisters and mother. Further, John was historically the disciple who was closest to Jesus, of whom Jesus could have given this commission as a sign of his close bond. There is not much of a reason to believe that the siblings were actually cousins. The bible has a word for cousin, and it used in Luke to describe Elizabeth. As far as I am aware this language is not used to describe Jesus' siblings. So, the case in favor of Mary having children by Joseph after Jesus: - No children mentioned prior to Jesus birth, during the trips to bethlehem or egypt - No mention of Joseph being previously married - Matthew 1:25 (I know this was the topic of the video, but the video is trying to offer an alternate reading to the plain reading of the text. this text is still evidence for Mary having additional children). - Children mentioned after Jesus is grown, and described as his peers. On most occasions they are grouped with or accompanying Mary, which doesn't seem like a plausible grouping if he was not related to them and they were also not related to Mary. The case against: - Jesus asked John to care for Mary, instead of his siblings, in contravention of custom There are theological reasons for being skeptical of this teaching as well. The catholic church teaches that "Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh." See also the Catechism 2362. Now I know that the church teaches deliberately celibate marriage is a thing, but solely because of the obvious problem that consummation would cause for Mary and Joseph when teaching perpetual virginity. I am not aware of any biblical or natural theology reason to hold that a marriage can be valid without consummation. But that is an aside. If the purpose of marriage is to unite the two to become one flesh and procreate, it is difficult to see how Mary and Joseph's marriage can be considered ordered in any sense of the term according to catholic theology itself. As usual, the bible itself does not help catholic teaching in this regard. 1 Cor. 7 for example, explicitly tells married persons not deprive each other of their conjugal rights except for temporary purposes. Thus, it is difficult to reconcile how sex within marriage could be a necessary and good thing ordered by God, but was not enacted between Mary and Joseph, but yet they could still be considered married. Why marry at all? If the thought process is that having marital relations with Joseph would taint Mary's supposed sinlessness (which raises other problems), why would Mary and Joseph get married at all, since this would perpetuate to others that she was participating in some form of sinful behavior (since everyone else would assume this is a normal marriage). The concept of a celibate marriage was entirely foreign to Jewish culture as far as I am aware. This teaching also has the unfortunate side effect of making married persons choose between being Holy (and abstaining) and giving into their sexual desires and procreating (which is one of the goods of marriage). I unfortunately cannot see a way to reconcile these conflicts. You cannot say that procreation and conjugal intimacy are goods that are ordered from marriage, but then claim that Mary did not engage in such goods within her marriage because . . . she was good? Either marriage relations are not good under any circumstances (and are I guess a necessary evil for procreation?) and therefore all sexual unions are disordered, or they are good (which is what is taught by the bible AND the catholic church) in which case Mary and Joseph denied these goods and perpetrated a sham marriage, in which they were not made one flesh. If the purpose of this doctrine is to demonstrate Mary was sinless, then she should have remained unmarried, like Jesus. Note that Jesus did not get married and remained celibate. TL;DR The cumulative evidence in the Bible strongly suggests that Mary had additional children by Joseph, and lived a normal married life with her spouse and children. While it is possible that she had no other children and the siblings mentioned in the gospels were not related to Jesus at all, it is not all that plausible. The concept of perpetual virginity is in conflict with catholic and biblical teachings on the goods and purposes of marriage and sex within marriage, and does not seem to serve any purpose theologically beyond perpetrating a doctrine that Mary was sinless. This of course implies all sex in any context (including marriage for procreative purposes) is sinful and disordered.

[@jonathanstensberg]

Well this was a groundless unhinged rant. The scripture itself explicitly states that two of the four named "brothers" of Jesus are in fact the sons of Mary wife of Clopas. The scripture explicitly says that Mary wife of Clopas is the sister of Mary the mother Jesus. This confirmed by ancient historial records, as Eusebius quotes an earlier record that states Clopas was the brother of Joseph. This tells us 1) that the scripture alone teaches that at least some of the "brothers" of Jesus are in fact cousins, and 2) that ancient kin-based cultures were especially exact in their descriptions of family relations, for instance, describing in-laws as siblings and cousins as brothers.

[@jonathanw1106]

@jonathanstensberg is "groundless unhinged rant" really helping your case buddy? Just stick with arguments, and these are good, I missed those. Although I don't think it is ultimately compelling

[@mrscharmless]

It’s not a sin to have marital relations - this is ultimately what differentiates marriage from other relationships. Sex within marital bounds is beautiful and a very good thing, but in the specific case of St Joseph and the blessed virgin, it was not necessary. St Joseph was assigned to be Mary’s and the Child Jesus’ protector, as being an unmarried mother would have left them both in a very vulnerable state. The reason why our blessed mother is a perpetual virgin is because her body literally became the dwelling place of the Incarnate Word here on earth. She became the new ark of the Covenant. It’s important to remember that she was created and selected, out of all women, with the very specific purpose of being the mother of God, and eventually to become the mother of all believers. There really was no reason for her to have any more biological children.

[@jonathanw1106]

@mrscharmless I understand that is the dogma of the church, but my point is that this seems to be a teaching of convenience. In other words, we don't have a biblical reason to believe any of this, but church tradition teaches it, so we have to figure out a way to make it work within the biblical and natural law framework. While Mary was a blessed and influential Saint, we should not impose on her or Joseph more than what the Bible would say, especially if you are going to assign a quasi deity role upon her. The bible at face value says nothing of Mary in terms of her role beyond the conception and birth of God, all other references are to a very normal and human mother who cared for her children as well as Jesus. What I dislike about dogmas like this is that it sets the bar incredibly low for whether we should such beliefs- its basically as long as the Bible doesn't explicitly and unmistakenly deny it, we can not only believe it but even anathematize others who are skeptical. I think given the purpose of the Virgin birth was so that Christ would not inherit a sin nature from an earthly father, it doesn't help by turning that into a deification doctrine for Mary. The focus should always be on Christ, not on others, including the Mother of God. I don't think she would be pleased with the type of adoration and devotion she is given, much like if the Israelites deified the ark God would not have been pleased. Sorry that was a lot, my actual response is that I'm not sure why it was unnecessary for Joseph and Mary to have a normal marital relationship even in light of Mary's status. It seems to again imply their is something impure about marriage relations that Mary was above

[@andrejuthe]

Very good argumentation!

[@infallibleinterpreter]

Trent could you please do I response to that Kyle orthodox guy. I’m absolutely tired of him showing up in my feed attacking the Catholic Church and I need someone to rebuke him.

[@John_Six]

Oh, look. James White dislikes Mary. What's new?

[@jonfeuerborn5859]

James White: The text clearly favors the idea that Mary had other children. Catholic: James White dislikes Mary. Me: ... Alright then. I guess that just happened.

[@John_Six]

@@jonfeuerborn5859 If you dedicate so much of your life to bring Mary down then I would say you dislike her. Show me videos dedicated to building Mary up by James White. If you say, "down with the king," are you for or against the king? This is what James White says when he rejects that Mary is the Gebirah. James White, July 17, 2005, "Next, our Catholic correspondent referred to the “Queen Mother” in the Davidic kingdom. Of course, there was no “Queen Mother” in David’s kingdom." Oh and when you find that video dedicated to Mary by James White let me know.

[@melchior2678]

Who cares? Mary is not God anyway. Mary was just an ordinary mortal, no one truly special.

[@John_Six]

@@melchior2678 When did I say that Mary is God? You're proving my comment. Protestants dislike Mary. Genesis 3:15

[@wisdomsdoorstep]

@@John_Sixnope, we don’t dislike her. We just don’t venerate her or anyone else except Christ as God.

[@FosterDuncan1]

As a prot Mary is a perpetual virgin.

[@gospelfreak5828]

Why? What proof?

[@FosterDuncan1]

@@gospelfreak5828 the best theologians reformation and church father alike affirmed it. Nothing in scripture contradicts it. And typology

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@FosterDuncan1 That doesn't make it true. Nothing in scripture contradicts a flat earth. Should we believe that as it would have been held by the majority of people until the 15th century? Mary having sex after Jesus was born doesn't change any doctrine. It just seems to lack common sense. People in marriage have sex. Even if it is just once, that is what married couples do if they haven't lost function of their body parts. I don't see how typology would play into this. A belief held by reformers and church fathers isn't actual evidence of her virginity. I am asking for something like something in scripture or eyewitness testimony from those close to Mary

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@FosterDuncan1 What reasons do they give to believe it?

[@TheNewCrusade]

As Another Prot I agree with you.

[@AnselmInstitute]

Thank you for all the wonderful work you do. Very grateful.

[@DanielTominiko]

Hey, when showing the words of John Chrysostom, it looks like some AI art was paired with it. If there is an older historical illustration/icon of an important figure [within public domain], I suggest using that to depict them instead.

[@jorge28624]

AI art is okay tho

[@JPKloess]

​@@jorge28624It's really not. In pretty much all cases it's "trained" on unlicensed material. It's just fancy theft.

[@FonkyMonk3359]

​@@JPKloessIt also just replaced the person. Artwork done by AI takes jobs away from actual artist and makes them obsolete.

[@techelitesareadisease8816]

@@FonkyMonk3359 AI art is not unethical and it is inevitable. If a person cannot find anyone to purchase their art, that is not society's issue. People will still be happy to pay artists for genuine pieces, that will be true until the end of time. "It takes jobs away" is never a good argument concerning a technological advancement.

[@JPKloess]

@@FonkyMonk3359 Or if the artist is dead, you miss the chance to see cool Renaissance art or iconography. I can see AI as a tool in certain situations, like I've used Photoshop's inbuilt one to expand the sides a little bit on an image that's not the right ratio. But using it to make stuff whole sale seems the wrong way to go societally.

[@concernedcitizen2350]

Trent Horn to James White “How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man”

[@geoffjs]

James White is sad old man!

[@cslewis1404]

His own sister is Catholic! He should ask his sister!

[@concernedcitizen2350]

@@JESUS_Saves3747 hey thanks for copying and pasting these tired out Protestant arguments but every single one of these have been rebutted time and time again lol

[@petermenkveld4162]

All this video does is provide some wiggle room. Not proof of anything. It would have been wrong for Mary and Joseph to not have sex. Sex is good in marriage and Mary would have wanted to bear other children in that culture. Stop saying Joseph was a cruel husband.

[@cobramcjingleballs]

how many times do we have to teach you, James the (half) brother of christ is mentioned several times and how 1st timothy, a bishop should have only one wife. Most roman beliefs (there were 4 other big christian churches out there till muslims destroyed 3 of and then 4 of them.....) most of your beliefs started in 700s as well as historical lies, after the roman greek empire stopped appointing roman bishops.

[@robertplaenk9045]

Thank you for such deep and easily understood clarification! It really made so much sense to me. Thank you! ❤

[@DavidLTJ]

What I love about you, Trent. Is you maintain a charitable view of the matter at hand. Christianity is about love. Sometimes I am confused when one believer "attacks" another believer just to make a point. God bless!

[@Graciaplena12]

You are greatly appreciated here Trent, thank you.

[@ivarkoedijker168]

Protestant take: Meaning is determined by its (immediate) context. We should look at all the occurrences of "héos" in Matthew first. Only then you can consider other examples, with those of the same period considered first. All the occurrences in e.g. Matthew 2 clearly indicate a change (v. 9, 13, 15). Regarding Matthew 28:20, Jesus gave his disciples the command to preach and make disciples. It is clear that he meant he is with us doing this work until the completion of the age. Because after the completion of the age it won’t be necessary anymore to preach and make disciples. So it also won’t be necessary for Jesus to be with us doing that work (because that work has ceased then). Regarding the example from Acts 25:21, what makes the most sense is that the procurator refers to Paul being held in Caesarea until he was sent off. Tertullian did not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. Clement of Alexandria did though, basing this belief on the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal work.

[@jerb6817]

What? How dare you. Meaning is only determined by the context when it supports the view we want. But seriously, this is just bad exegesis on Trent’s part which is disappointing because I usually really appreciate his stuff. The fact that a phrase can have different meanings in different contexts does not alter the fact that the context of Matthew 1:25 clearly implies that the “until” indicates there was a cessation. Going to a different context that CLEARLY in that context shows the phrase has a different meaning does nothing to change the context of Matt. 1:25. The better understanding is that people at that time would have absolutely expected Mary and Joseph to have sex in their marriage whether or not Jesus actually had any brothers so Matthew is making clear that they waited until Jesus was born to show that his conception had to be supernatural.

[@ivarkoedijker168]

@@jerb6817 Good point about what Matthew was trying to make clear with his remark!

[@eddardgreybeard]

Apocryphal based on dubious authorship, not heretical teaching. And St. Jerome, the translator of Scripture, also taught Mary's perpetual virginity. Way more Church fathers believed it than didn't And it would follow the biblical pattern of only begotten sons if Christ was the only son of Mary

[@ivarkoedijker168]

@@eddardgreybeard Not heretical? The Proto-Gospel of James was comdemned in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I. Jerome lived in the fourth century,. Tertullian lived in the second, much closer to the original teachings. Jerome also taught Joseph was a perpetual virgin. And Jerome did not think the Deuterocanonical books belonged in the canon. These are just some examples to show that Jerome was a man of his time and place. Who are those other only begotten sons? Sarah only got Isaac of course, but she was already very old. Hannah had three sons and two daughters after giving birth to Samuel (1 Samuel 2:21). I don't see any such pattern.

[@rickydettmer2003]

Yet Origen also believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity

[@zachpeterson8341]

The only evidence I need is the utter ubiquity of belief in the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity until vanishing recently.

[@jorgen7180]

The Germans of Luther were the same as the Catholic Germans of today, trying to burn the Church down.

[@teeemm9456]

@@jorgen7180 Looks like we found the racist catholic.

[@teeemm9456]

" utter ubiquity of belief in the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity until vanishing recently." Sure, if you ignore the early church when they knew she wasn't a perpetual virgin until a few generations later when Mary infatuation took over.

[@zachpeterson8341]

@@teeemm9456 What early Church Fathers support your position?

[@teeemm9456]

@@zachpeterson8341 Let me do a survey and ask them, hold on a few minutes.

[@JohnCooper-y7n]

However, as John Meier wrote, when Jesus says "who is my mother and who is my brother" loses its force if it means counsins. Also, Paul knows the difference between the Greek words cousins and brothers.

[@jonathanstensberg]

Not to an ancient Hebrew! Don't impose you own cultural prejudices on writings about a dramatically different culture than your own.

[@dandeliontea7]

@jonathanstensberg Paul was an ancient Hebrew. A "Pharisee of Pharisees", even. And he still calls James the Lord's brother.

[@ajamusic7322]

What "loses its force" is nothing more than an opinion of a 21st century, western formed mindset. Its not proof, not even evidence.

[@Science_explained]

Colossians 4:10. Paul actually uses the word cousin to refer to the relationship between Mark and Barnabas. The word cousin did exist, and Paul knew it did.

[@Cklert]

Paul also uses the same Greek word for brothers for the 500 witnesses. Clearly he isn't meaning literal brothers. It ultimately doesn't matter what the actual relationship toward Jesus was. All that matters was that they were not sons of Mary. They could have been his cousins, his step-siblings, or perhaps just his best friends growing up. The fact is, is that Jesus was close to them. But they did not share the same mother.

[@TJ042]

About the brothers argument, Russian treats cousins in a similar way; they are a kind of sibling, dvoyurodnyy brat and dvoyurodnaya sestra (second-tier brother and sister). Often, they cut this out and just call cousins brothers and sisters.

[@blakewolford8903]

Nice job Trent! Also love the editing, well done!

[@krusader33]

Thanks for shouting out the Eastern Churches perspective on this. Christ is risen!

[@krusader33]

@@JESUS_Saves3747 ok

[@sapientia178]

Baby wake up Trent posted another rebuttal

[@gainsofglory6414]

If she had other sons why were they so terrible as to be worse than the unrepentant for not taking care of her when Jesus died? If scripture says not taking care of your aging parents is one of the worst things a person can do, why then did every single one of these mysterious siblings fall so low as to refuse their own mother and she had to be given to the care of John? And nobody even thinks to talk about them, ever.

[@sassychimpanzee7431]

Agreed. If Jesus had all of these siblings, why do we know absolutely nothing about them? Why did they have no involvement in anything? If my brother was the Son of God I think I'd be pretty involved in his life and doing what he needed. We know about Mary's parents and other people related to Jesus, but we don't know anything about his siblings? There's multiple events in which the holy family is together in the Bible, and all of these siblings are never mentioned. The only time they are mentioned is when it's unclear that they're actually siblings or cousins or even just close friends.

[@MatthewFearnley]

I don't think it was a question of his brothers or cousins refusing to take care of Mary. Jesus may have wanted the role to go to the Beloved Disciple for other reasons.

[@gainsofglory6414]

@@MatthewFearnley that was not allowed in the culture, and by his own teachings. If there were any brothers, they would be made a mockery off by such a request and it would have been such an unusual thing that it would require explanation. If Jesus was to undo a teaching and divert from such a critical norm, he would have a grand reason for it that would be mentioned. His brothers would demand to know why Jesus was taking their mother from them against all norms and teaching. John would have also had a note worthy reaction to this, and need to know why such a thing was being asked of him that defies all standards. And Mary would demand to know also why she was being taken away from her sons against all reasoning. But she isn't mother to anyone else, thus there are no sons of hers to ask those questions. There is no reason for John to have any such reaction, and there is no reason for Mary to ask such questions either. Hence why in scripture we get everyone involved responding the way that they do. Normal responses to a perfectly normal and expected situation of passing a mother into the care of another when she has no living children or husband. Carrying out the entirely standard Jewish custom and nobody bats an eye. There are numerous other pieces of evidence to her virginity but the fact nobody involved even batted an eye at what would be such an unthinkable situation with Jesus going against his own teaching is telling that Mary just actually didn't have any other children.

[@timopper5488]

⁠@@sassychimpanzee7431 That’s a really good point you made that they are only mentioned when it’s unclear! Yet the contortionists and hoop-jumpers still object, instead of joining Cirque du Soleil where they belong. 🤣🤣🤣

[@timopper5488]

@@gainsofglory6414 You laid that out very clearly, objecting to it from multiple detailed viewpoints. It’s the truth, yet there are others whom I guess still like to squander their time denying, denying, denying instead of just believing, as Jesus instructed us to do. And you know what Jesus said will befall his deniers.

[@scottgun]

Today is the feast of St. Matthias and I was reading Acts 1: 14-15. It's quite telling that verse 14 talks about Our Lord's brethern (adelphos), and _in the very next verse_ has Peter talking to a hundred plus people as brethren (again, adelphos).

[@Jusoon]

modern Protestants seem to just pick and choose what they want to believe, even if it means casting aside their own founders, which I suppose is what draws so many to those multitudinous sects.

[@TearlessGosling]

The founding fathers don't matter to much of Protestantism; I know most of my peers couldn't tell you anything about Arminianism vs Calvinism vs Molanism etc; they don't know reformation day or who Martin Luther was, because at the end of the day it does not matter. Can they provide insight and thoughts into the beliefs of men hundreds of years ago? Sure, but they aren't integral to being Christian. Church history matters much less to an average protestant, so this casting aside founders' bit doesn't sting us quite as much as you think.

Ezekiel 44 tells about the prophetic temple which is god. The lord said tbis gate must remain closed.it must not be opened and no one should come through it. Because the lord the god of Israel came through it, it must remain close. Mary is the gate. St Jerome commented on this text against the Pelagians. Only Christ opened the close doors of the virginal womb, which continued to be remained closed, however. This is the closed eastern gate,through which only the high priest may enter and exit and which nevertheless is always closed.

[@winduprose]

One of the reasons why Mary's Perpetual Virginity matters is because it's in direct correlation with the Divinity of Jesus being the True Son of God a.k.a. God Himself as the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity Godhead. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant carried the Real Presence of God inside, therefore the Ark itself was so holy and sacred, no one was allowed to touch it as it was to be kept pure and unblemished, only the high priest was allowed near it. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant because by the grace of God she carried the New Covenant and High Priest who is JESUS. Mary's Perpetual Virginity (and Immaculate Conception) bestowed upon her by God is in connection with this fact that Jesus is truly God - The same God who was present in the old Ark of the Covenant is the same God who is present in the New Ark of the Covenant, therefore the New Ark of the Covenant is to be kept holy and sacred, pure and unblemished, touched by no one = Mary's Perpetual Virginity (and Immaculate Conception). Hence, why we defend Our Blessed Mother as Our Lord God Jesus defends her. Defending Our Lady IS defending Our Lord.

[@bluecomb5376]

Exactly! This is a very important response. I'm glad you articulated it so well.

[@tco13v]

Additionally, the Ark is a made of wood, an ordinary material that is covered in gold inside and out and sealed by a solid gold lid. Mary is an ordinary human being covered in God's holiness, sealed by the HS, preserving her from original sin.

[@adambrocklehurst4211]

You are treading very close to idolatry. Mary was not divine, she was the human mother of God. There is only one God within the Trinity.

[@cobramcjingleballs]

entirely wrong. The ark of th convent was the seat of God and did not carry his presence. God is everywhere and everyplace, being outside time and space. Sorry to tell you, your analogy is dead wrong. There is no more high priests, all christians are priests. When Christ died he ripped apart the veil separating man from God from top to bottom, so he did it. Christ is our bridegroom, not the high priest. In fact, it you want to say that, the holy spirit would be it. Because he carries our prayers to the father, per Bible. Except nothing you say is in Bible, it is pagan beliefs about their queen of heaven in so many religions, aphrodite, isis, ashatroth, etc. You have been deceived. Mary was not virgin born, doctrine around 700s, nor her mother, around 900s. She was human and sinned. Did you read her genealogy? The point of which is Christ is connected to David and Abraham on both sides of her family? And by defending her, you reject the Bible. Matthew 13:55 and galations 1:19, pone of which names his brothers and sisters and one reaffirms James was his half brother. So who do you believe, priests or bible?

[@dat8835]

This is beautiful, very well said!

[@TheSuperXNova]

I find the appeal to the NT using familial language spiritually to be disingenuous. The first chronological instance of this is from Jesus Himself when talking to the crowd, in which He contrasts His actual familial ties to His followers as His spiritual family (Mk. 3:31-35). Thus, yes, the writers of the NT also use this spiritual familial language to naturally contrast it with the plain meaning, not to say that IS the plain meaning. The passage loses its literary effect if you do so. It is similar with the Evangelists' and Paul's use of Roman military and imperial language to contrast Christ as King and discuss His Heavenly Kingdom juxtaposing to Roman military power and imperialism. The NT use relies on the hearer knowing about the Roman plain meaning to literary effect; the text does not seek to replace the plain meaning.

[@TheJewishCatholic]

Concise, detailed and and easy to follow. Trent, thank you for this. As as I’ve said in the past, I’d love to have you on my channel sometime. Perhaps before autumn.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Why would Luke 2:7 bother identifying Jesus as Mary's firstborn if she had no other children?

[@ashur54]

"Firstborn" was a Jewish cultural and legal term, whether or not someone had more children afterward. Historically, and especially in Jewish culture, firstborn served a role and was used whether or not there were additional children. To remember God killing the firstborn of the Egyptians, the Jews had to likewise consecrate their firstborn to God. The firstborn of cattle and sheeps and goats was to be sacrificed. The firstborn of men was symbolically sacrificed-they were consecrated to God but then bought back with the price of their life (5 shekels). The reason is that the firstborn represent the hope and joy and future of the parents. God destroying the firstborn of the Egyptians meant Him destroying their hope and future prosperity. So likewise, to consecrate the firstborn to God meant for the Jews "we put our hope and joy and future in Your hands, we are entirely Yours."

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@ashur54 Since Luke was written in Greek, most certainly by a Gentile and aimed at Gentiles the idea that the word had a peculiar Jewish meaning is unpersuasive.

[@ashur54]

@@tomasrocha6139 not really, plus firstborn doesn’t mean you had more children lol. That verse has nothing to do with perpetual virginity. But I’m sure for 2000 years all Christians have been wrong, and the Protestant denial of it 1800 years after is true.

[@ashur54]

And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. - Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son: In what sense then her firstborn? By firstborn she here means, not the first among several brethren, but one who was both her first and only son: for some such sense as (his exists among the significations of "firstborn." For sometimes also the Scripture calls that the first which is the only one; as "I am God, the First, and with Me there is no other." To shew then that the Virgin did not bring forth a mere man, there is added the word firstborn; for as she continued to be a virgin, she had no other son but Him Who is of the Father: concerning Whom God the Father also proclaims by the voice of David, "And I will set Him Firstborn high among the kings of the earth." Of Him also the all-wise Paul makes mention, saying, "But when He brought the First-begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him." How then did He enter into the world? For He is separate from it, not so much in respect of place as of nature; for it is in nature that He differs from the inhabitants of the world: but He entered into it by being made man, and becoming a portion of it by the incarnation. For though He is the Only-begotten as regards His divinity, yet as having become our brother, He has also the name of Firstborn; that, being made the first-fruits as it were of the adoption of men, He might; make us also the sons of God. Consider therefore that He is called the Firstborn in respect of the economy: for with respect to His divinity He is the |10 Only-begotten. Again, He is the Only-begotten in respect of His being the Word of the Father, having no brethren by nature, nor being co-ordinate with any other being: for the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, is One and Alone: but He becomes the Firstborn by descending to the level of created things. When therefore He is called the Only-begotten, He is so with no cause assigned by reason of which He is the Only-begotten, being "the Only-begotten God 5 into the bosom of the Father:" but when the divine Scriptures call Him Firstborn, they immediately also add of whom He is the firstborn, and assign the cause of His bearing this title: for they say, "Firstborn among many brethren:" and "Firstborn from the dead:" the one, because He was made like unto us in all things except sin; and the other, because He first raised up His own flesh unto incorruption. Moreover, He has ever been the Only-begotten by nature, as being the Sole begotten of the Father, God of God, and Sole of Sole, having shone forth God of God, and Light of Light: but He is the Firstborn for our sakes, that by His being called the Firstborn of things created, whatever resembles Him may be saved through Him: for if He must of necessity be the Firstborn, assuredly those must also continue to exist of whom He is the Firstborn. But if, as Eunomius 6 argues, He is called God's Firstborn, as born the first of many; and He is also the Virgin's Firstborn; then as regards her also, He must be the first as preceding another child: but if He is called Mary's Firstborn, as her only child, and not as preceding others, then is He also God's Firstborn, not as the first of many, but as the Only One born. Moreover if the first are confessedly the cause of the second, but God and the Son of God are first, then is the Son the cause of those who have the name of sons, inasmuch as it is through Him that they have obtained the appellation. He therefore who is the cause of the second sons may justly be called the |11 Firstborn, not as being the first of them, but as the first cause of their receiving the title of sonship. And just as the Father being called the first----"for I, He saith, am the first, and I am after these things"----assuredly will not compel us to regard Him as similar in nature to those that are after Him; so also though the Son be called the first of creation, or the Firstborn before all creation, it by no means follows that He is one of the things made: but just as the Father said "I am the first," to shew that He is the origin of all things, in the same sense the Son also is called the first of creation. "For all things were made by Him," and He is the beginning of all created things, as being the Creator and Maker of the world 7. - Cyril of Alexandria Jesus is called Gods firstborn as well, even tho he is the only begotten Son. Don’t try to look like a know it all.

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@ashur54 Throughout the bible many others like King David are called Sons of God, it's only natural for Jesus to be identified as the Firstborn. Helvidius explicitly denied it as there's no evidence most of the earliest Christians believed it either.

[@mikethemonsta15]

That's not an AI thumbnail is it? Please don't use AI generated artwork.

[@ChanceClubs]

It isn't that serious

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

Why not?

[@jorge28624]

@@FrJohnBrownSJ some people suffer from scruples, father.

[@TheJmlew11]

For those wondering why folks are encouraging not I’d say it has to do with the fact that this trend takes away from historical and current art. And is generally soulless, whilst feeding into the AI collective as opposed to actual artists.

[@sivad1025]

​@@ChanceClubs It's essentially theft. It takes other people's work and distorts it without due credit

[@lttsurumistopguy9858]

The bizarre thing here is that using the “normative” definition of brother to mean “full siblings sharing in common both the same mother and father” in respect to the brothers Jesus wouldn’t just defeat Mary’s perpetual virginity, it would destroy Christianity. You’d have to conclude that either Christ had Joseph as his biological father in common with his siblings or that Christ’s siblings were all begotten of God.

[@SneakyEmu]

What? How would it do that? It would just mean the rest of his siblings were from the same mother

[@purplesuitman3764]

@@SneakyEmufull siblings means both parents are the same

[@lttsurumistopguy9858]

The common protestant objection is that "adelphos"/"brothers" here has the same connotations it does in it's hundreds of OT uses, where it's used to describe full siblings, and not it's regular connotations in the NT where it's used as something closer to "relative". But for the "brothers" of Christ to meet that OT definition of adelphos they must have the same mother AND father, it is never used to describe half-siblings. So no just saying they were from the same mother wouldn't fit with this

[@SneakyEmu]

@@lttsurumistopguy9858 there was no other instance of a virgin birth either so why should we expect them to make up a new word to describe a half brother? Obviously brother meant that they came from the same mother

[@StringofPearls55]

​@@lttsurumistopguy9858Genesis 14:12-14 uses adelphos to describe Lot’s relation to Abraham. We know Lot was Abraham’s nephew not his brother.

[@nickonde5937]

As a protestant, I have two questions regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. 1) Why do catholics care so much? It doesn't seem relevant at all. 2) Why would Mary refusing to sleep with her husband not be sinful?

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

YES!!! You’re point no. 2 is the best case against this idea, because it presumes a low view of Mary to have not only continue in sin, but to force her husband to sin as well. Protestants have a higher view of Mary than Catholics do because protestants don’t believe Mary presumed herself above God’s edicts.

[@shaulkramer7425]

1) It's tied into Dogma, as The Church has declared the perpetual virginity and assumption of Mary into heaven as infallible teachings. Many protestants have tried to poke holes, in order to "disprove" the Church's authority, as the true church that Christ entrusted to Peter couldn't really make a mistake. Whether those arguments are correct or not is up to you to judge. I've found that Horn and others have made a convincing case that there's nothing in the Scripture that disproves the Church's claim, and therefore, Protestants can't claim that the Church erred in an infallible teaching. 2) "Refusing to sleep with..." that assumes that Joseph made that demand... I think it's pretty appropriate for Joseph, who has sons from a previous marriage already, to be respectful of the womb made holy by the Holy Spirit and refrain. Wouldn't you?

[@JohnRP.95]

They pray to Mary. Mary is a deity for them. All popes dedicates themselves more to Mary than to Jesus or God so... That should tell you all you need to know.

[@Cklert]

​@@JohnRP.95My friend, you should stop bearing false witness against us. We don't believe in that.

[@shortstopmotions]

Because Mary never had actual sex after giving birth to Christ. She was immaculate (without sin) , and Mary knew that the purpose of her life was to give birth to the messiah, and that's it.Or, in other words, she wanted to live by whatever God will for her live. So even if she wanted to have more children, she couldn't because God never told her to have more children

[@matthew_scarbrough]

Excellent and thought-provoking response! this means my only remaining objection to perpetual virginity is that despite its earliest attestation being Gnostic in origin, the reason it was so readily adopted by the Fathers so early could be due to Greco-Roman taboos around s3x. Roman elites especially viewed it as a weakness and shameful thing to be tempted by and generally praised celibacy.

[@canibezeroun1988]

This is an excellent point. Thank you Trent.

[@thoughtlessroamer]

Trent Horn, defending the faith from people who don’t have the brainpower to tear it down.

[@clintonwilcox4690]

I see you're not big on that "love your neighbor" thing Jesus taught.

[@thoughtlessroamer]

@@clintonwilcox4690 Its something that I work on

[@TJBowman-vr1co]

​@clintonwilcox4690 and what is love?

[@FlexCathedrafromIG]

​@@clintonwilcox4690I see nothing wrong with his comment. People that go out of their way to make anti Catholic videos without doing extensive research and seeing everything that the Church has taught on important dogmas (Like Mary's perpetual virginity) truly are foolish.

[@afilthywarlockmain1447]

@@FlexCathedrafromIGextensive research, aka “grasping at straws”

[@AHuman-rc6ds]

I feel like the AI doesn’t thumbnail was unnecessary. Good vid tho keep up the good work 🫡🫡

[@Sirach144]

This man really tries to logic his way out of what it plainly says to keep a doctrine that’s not biblical.

[@Tonihuber153]

Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct.

[@LukeMeyer-dq6mr]

So your theology is illogical?

[@Sirach144]

@@LukeMeyer-dq6mr it’s it’s based on the harmonious teachings of the Bible and not what man says

[@Tonihuber153]

@@Sirach144: Thank you for promoting sound doctrine.

[@jp-too]

Chaste marriage existed in the Mosaic Law. Numbers 30:6

[@Swish82]

The simple fact that Protestants argue with Catholics and other Protestants about what the Bible really says is evident that Sola Scriptura is false and the bible requires an interpretor. Once you realize that, you only need to figure out who the correct interpretor or Scripture is. Well, obviously, it's the Catholic Church since that's the source from how it came to be.

[@DPK5201]

Ah, but there is no infallible interpretor. Neither you, the Pope, me, Augustine, or any Saint! Just interpret Scripture with Scripture yourself. You will be no worse for wear.

[@gospelfreak5828]

The simple fact that protestants and Catholics argue with other protestants and Catholics on what the Catholic Church really says means that the authority of the Catholic Church is false and requires an interpreter. Once you realize this interpreter is, well I guess nobody, you realize that disagreement doesn't affect truth any more than disagreement over the earths shape means that we need some holy authority to tell us the earth is round. There are objective measures of interpretation. Some people are just wrong on that. Many protestants and Catholics are wrong in their interpretative methods of scripture. That just means they should except or learn better standards of hermeneutics, not that we need some fallible authority to tell us the Bible says something that it clearly does not teach.

[@DPK5201]

@@JESUS_Saves3747 excellent!

[@Cklert]

​@@DPK5201 "Just interpret Scripture with Scripture yourself." "Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved; our beloved brother Paul told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that was given to him, 16 speaking of it in all his letters. In them, there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable distort in the same way that they distort the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2: Peter 3:15-16 "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to *the church;* and if they refuse to listen even to *the church,* treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Jesus a established the one Church, to whom he promised he would never abandon. That he gave the Holy Spirit to, and promised the gates of Hell will not prevail. The Church does have that authority as being the infallible interpreter. You however, will play it fast and loose with your own interpretations and may not be aware of errors. What good is that? How would you ever know your interpretation is the correct one without some appeal to pride?

[@shGarrett]

I don’t get why Mary’s perpetual virginity is so important to believe though. The Bible doesn’t give a ton of evidence either way, so it seems not that important in light of other doctrine.

[@NTSPTQ]

typical RC pearl clutching, that's why

[@jonathanstensberg]

By the exact same reasonaly, why is it so important *not* to believe it? If something is universally believed for century upon century upon century, why do you want to believe otherwise? Do you think you have magic insight in to the exact same words on the page that everyone has read for millenia?

[@NevetsWC1134]

Why did all the reformers still believe it? Because it’s important.

[@Ben-hn4nw]

@@jonathanstensberg It wasn't universally believed - like the deuterocanonical books, the doctrine of perpetual virginity was disputed since the days of the early church fathers.

[@Cklert]

​@@Ben-hn4nwNot really. there have might have been a handful, if that. Most of the Church Father's were unanimous in this teaching.

[@nlytnlyt6644]

Thanks for uploading this, yesterday I made a comment I was struggling with the Catholic doctrines relating to Mary, and the Papacy so I appreciate this upload. However, having listened I still don’t feel compelled to agree in the perpetual virginity of Mary, in fact I feel less sure of it. Perhaps though, I am less sure of the Protestant position now also, what I can say for certainty: the Bible doesn’t seem to care about this topic all that much, had it been the case, the answer would be much clearer than it is. The best outcome seems to be that the perpetual or non-perpetual virginity of Mary appears to be a non-issue. She was, or she wasn’t. It makes no odds to Christian doctrine or our spiritual life aside from the apparent deification of Mary that is common in many Catholic communities.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

I dunno, the early church fathers being so adamant about it belies the idea that it is a non-issue. And for that matter the commentary of the protestant founders, Luther and Calvin and all the rest. The fact they took the time to clarify their position. The doctrines about Mary uphold the doctrines about Jesus, that's why they are important

[@sassychimpanzee7431]

Something that may help you is knowing that everyone believed Mary was a perpetual virgin for almost all of church history. Only Protestants in recent times have started saying she had other children. Martin Luther, the Orthodox Church, etc all believe(d) in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Women being consecrated virgins for life was not uncommon in Jewish society. Also, Mary and Joseph were already married when Gabriel announced to her that she was going to conceive and bear a son. If she was planning on having marital relations with Joseph, why would she have questioned the angel on this, saying "how can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" The only answer is that Mary was not planning on having children because she wasn't planning on having relations with Joseph. Also, another perspective to think about this from is Joseph's. Joseph knows that his wife is carrying God in her womb, making her the mother of God. To then have relations with her would seem.... A scary thing to do. To enter physically into the place that God dwelled. Would be like going into the Ark of the Covenant. A dangerous idea. Also, the idea that Jesus would have a bunch of half-siblings is also rather unbecoming and breaks the model of the holy family that is presented to us through Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Also, if Jesus had multiple siblings, it's strange to me that they would never be mentioned anywhere historically except for a few times where they are supposedly referenced, but those people could also be his cousins or even just people he's close to. If my brother was the son of God I think I'd be pretty involved in trying to aid in his life and do what he needed. In the same way that Mary and Joseph are referenced multiple times throughout the Bible and in other historical documents. Why would all of these siblings be left out? It just seems strange. We even definitively know the parents of Mary. But we don't know her other children? That's strange. Also, if Mary had other children and the bloodline continued, that would mean there are people today that are biologically related to Christ. That would be strange.

[@nlytnlyt6644]

@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal ok so I’m going to try hard and not lean in on my own biases here and look at this as objectively as possible, which is why I’ve concluded this appears to be a non-issue. For a doctrine to have significant implications on the believer it has to in some way hold to a belief or teaching that impacts our spiritual development, do you think that’s reasonable? For example: Jesus was without sin, this matters because only then could he atone for the sins of humanity, ergo it impacts our faith. Even the argument about creationism matters as it has to do with the consequences of the fall- is death a consequence of sin or is it not? This impacts our spiritual understanding of worldview (I am not a YEC just to be clear) So when we look at the perpetual virginity of Mary how does this impact our spiritual life or the worldview of our faith? We can agree Mary was a Virgin at conception and the implications of that are clear, for one thing it was prophesied she would be, furthermore it’s only this way that Jesus could be born without sin nature in him. He was a new Adam. But what impact does her perpetual virginity have? She did or didn’t die a virgin… what odds does it make? None.

[@nlytnlyt6644]

⁠​⁠@@sassychimpanzee7431 thanks for responding. Let me try to give my thoughts on these one at a time forgive me if I miss something out. 1) Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus affirmed perpetual virginity of Mary? I don’t think they did. 2) Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary learned she was going to give birth to Jesus, she was engaged to be married. That’s why Joseph said he would dissolve the engagement privately to save her family any indignity (Matt 1:18-19)it also says in this verse “before they came together” implying they did eventually “come together”. 3) brothers of Jesus include James and Jude who wrote the letters James and Jude and reference their relationship to Jesus in them. In the gospels they were referenced as being worried about Jesus and His ministry.

[@jacobbowers7137]

@@nlytnlyt6644 Excellent take.

[@mitchellosmer1293]

FACTS: Answer: Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 name four men called Jesus' brethren: James, Joses (short for Joseph Jr.), Simon, and Judas called Jude. Verse 56 mentions that Jesus had sisters. The sisters are not named, but since the word is plural there were at least two of them. ----FACT: Mitzvot #124 Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations from your wife. (Exodus 21:10) #125. To have children from her. (Genesis 1:28) Mary MUST obey that Jewish law!!!! Otherwise she is disobeying God, which then makes her a sinner!!!!!! 1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital ... ABSOLUTELY NO Vow ever mentioned of abstinence!!! Regardless, had she kept herself from her husband, she is thus a sinner for disobeying God Mitzvot #125!!!! Also, FACT: 1 John 1:8-10 ESV If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Who claims Mary remained simnless?? NOT MARY!!!! Catholics claim it, thus that means they are the liars!! Romans --for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. By claiming Mary was sinless, you are SAYING GOD is liar!!!!

[@yauchinlam2276]

Great video. To add on for the word brother/sister In Zambia they use the word brother loosely as well to this day. I know a woman who calls her first cousin “my brother”. So it is a cultural thing in the Western countries to be distinct between cousin and brother but that doesn’t mean all countries do it and all countries did it back then.

[@SneakyEmu]

Trent, your point at 7:40 doesn't really make sense. Of course "full sibling" had a specific word, but there's never been an instance where someone had a mother but no father as in Jesus case. Furthermore, the people in the new testament who Jesus is talking to DIDN'T KNOW who Jesus was or that he didn't have an earthly father, so why would they have used any other word for Jesus brother other than full siblings? Is it maybe because they knew mary had other sons?

[@carldodd5428]

Joseph knew her not until after jesus’s birth! An unconsummated marriage is not a marriage. Also there is no Bible/ theological need for Mary to remain a virgin after the messiah was born?

[@Austin_Schulz]

Jesus was the last in the line of King David.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Which of the many lines? Matthew and Luke list at least two and there were probably many more

[@giladpalleon8709]

Quit the ai generated art. We have plenty of beautiful inspired catholic historical art of our blessed mother. Don´t encourage this souless modern trend that is killing human creativity.

[@Joker22593]

As it turns out, Humans who use AIs have souls.

[@bobaphat3676]

this is rather narrow-minded.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

I agree. I'd rather see cartoons. They'd be more reverent.

[@giladpalleon8709]

@@Joker22593 But the art doesn´t. They don´t put anything of their own into the work, its not beauty. Its just some stolen imaged meshed together by an augorithm. Stop justyfiing lazyness.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Linguistics aside, was Mary's hymen broken when Jesus passed through her birth canal? If not then He came not by water and blood - He did not come "in the flesh" but moved through her as though He were a spirit-being. So the real question is, "Did Jesus come in the flesh or did He come as a spirit?" If He didn't break Mary's hymen then the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine that NECESSARILY teaches, Jesus came as a spirit and not in the flesh. Is there a doctrinal problem with that confession? If so, what is the problem? If not then why not?

[@Tonihuber153]

You make a great point.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@Tonihuber153 - Here's the doctrinal problem: 2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 1 John 4:2-3 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. The doctrine that Jesus was a spirit-being was around in the first century and the apostles warned against believing it. That doctrine still exists by reference in the Empire's religion. And the beauty of my logic is that no Catholic is prepared for it. This polemic is brand new and based off of nearly 2000 years of error. The _Infancy Gospel of James_ (a second century work) draws us the picture of what this doctrine looks like. I used that illustration to work out the math of proving that Mary could not have been a virgin perpetually - otherwise, Jesus isn't one of us. Did Jesus come in the flesh? A good Catholic has to answer that question, "No." 1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Antichrist? If not, why not?

[@Tonihuber153]

@@GizmoFromPizmo : I agree with you.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@Tonihuber153 Get this message out. This is the Achilles Heel of the Empire's religion. This is the proof that the world needs to call Babylon the Great to account. The doctrine that Jesus was a spirit-like being has been around since the first century and the Empire's religion is propagating it. The Apostle John calls it, "Antichrist". That makes the Empire's religion an antichrist religion. It's the smoking gun that will take down the Empire. What is Catholicism going to do, deny that Mary is a perpetual virgin? She can't do that. There is too much invested. Is she going to rewrite the scriptures? She's tried that in the past a great number of times (witness the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus). This doctrine goes back to the time of the apostles and the apostles called it "antichrist". That makes Catholicism an antichrist religion - just like Judaism and Islam. It's the Achilles Heel of the Roman Empire's religion. Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, is fallen!

[@iggyantioch]

Lazy grasping 😂 truly funny. Seriously going the amateur gynecologist/ obstetrics route. This one I haven't heard of. Consider this. according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act (“sex-act virginity”) and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed (“seed-act virginity”) (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity,

[@midnightcoffee6463]

Good gravy, talk about debating down to letters :/ Is that why there are thousands of denominations?

[@Furetto126]

If there's something you are passionate about you try to get to understand it as best as you can, so it makes sense there's debate over this type of stuff.

[@williamgrossett312]

Why is it so important that Mary remained a perpetual virgin? Why would she not have marital relations with her husband after Jesus was born? Is not God's desire for married people to grow closer to one another and experience intimacy together?

[@CountCulture27]

Exactly. I started and then stopped this video. All Trent is doing is what he does frequently, tell us what the Scripture “could be saying” instead of taking just a normal reading of it. I started with his perpetual virgin argument and it’s lacking big time. I’m not going to bother anymore with this video.

[@Pospolite-Ruszenie]

The Bible wasn’t written in English, and different languages don’t have direct translations.

[@Natureboy-og3mp]

This is really unconvincing to literally anyone not bought into this concept. Think of it this way, if no one had ever suggested Mary’s perpetual virginity and Trent came along and declared this doctrine using this video to convince you, would you be convinced? Also, a massive problem with how Horn argues is there is never any ambiguity, never any hard passages we can’t explain. It’s all pat.

[@DPK5201]

Indeed. I've long thought the concept is assumed and they argue backwards to justify a preconception.

[@michaelbasileos]

The only problem with your view is that no one ever assumed that the Virgin is not ever-Virgin. It has always been assumed that she was Ever-Virgin. It was not “suggested” nor is it an innovation. The first to teach it was the heretic Helvidius (see Jerome’s treatise against him) and he was condemned vehemently. So it is your spiritual fathers who came up with the innovation (who indeed came after the Reformers, once Europe had started to embrace secularist godlessness and lost its sense of the very concept of something being sacred) who are reading this backward into history. TLDR, your objection for much of Church history would be applied to your position, not to the doctrine of Ever-Virginity.

[@DPK5201]

@@michaelbasileos really? It is assumed that a woman will always remain a virgin when married?? Even the Virgin Mary??Now that is implausible! She was a virgin when she had Jesus. Only.

[@DPK5201]

@@michaelbasileos I don't think Matthew in 13:55 thought she was ever a virgin And that goes back to the very beginning.

[@noseal543]

Why didn't it say James, Joses, Juda, Simon, James, and John? - If the western view is correct, and they are His cousins in Mark 6:3, and if it's true that Salome is the sister of Mary (John 19:25, Matthew 27:56), then what would be the understanding of why James and John (who would also be His cousins, they being the sons of Zebedee and Salome), are not named along with these other supposed cousins James, Joses, Juda, and Simon in Mark 6:3?

[@connormonday]

I can’t imagine wanting to leave the Catholic Church over an issue like this.

[@emz6133]

The argument that "until" in Mt 1:25 is used in the same way as in 2 Samuel is stupid, because it only makes sense that the word "until" does not include a reversal of condition when it is used to say that someone haven't managed to achieve something or do something until his death, but Mt 1:25 is not saying "until his death"

[@jimmydavid1993]

Yeah!!!, I agree with you, and I think it is high time that parallel is removed in defending Mary's EVER VIRGINITY. However, I wonder what you therefore conclude based only on that error. The other positive arguments suffice from scripture alone. Tradition confirms. Trent did a brilliant job of proving that like many have done for the hundreds of years. But to those who believe no reason is necessary, and to those who do not, no reason is sufficient. Peace!

[@ghostapostle7225]

The claim is not that its used in the same way, rather that the term doesn't necessarily means what protestants claims about the passage in Matthew. No one uses it as a positive argument for Mary's perpetual virginity.

[@jimmydavid1993]

@@ghostapostle7225 You are correct. But also, the 2 Samuel allusion does not help either, as it is too obvious to compare with something else that need other context for clarification. No one gives birth after death. Nevertheless, the attack on Mary's ever-virginity is demonic in my view. I can only say I am glad it is a dogma of the church if only for that reason. Because she always crushes the head of Lucifer

[@TikkunFiat]

This is nonsense. Sorry, so even if they are adopted brothers, we are to believe Joseph ceased sexual intercourse with the wife? The stretch we go to defend our pet theories

[@landzhark3823]

Well… yes? I don’t know about you but if my new wife had just had God’s son come out of her, I’m not gonna be the one to try and follow that up. Seems reasonable to me

[@michaelogrady232]

These are the same people who argue "this is My Body" does not mean "this is My Body." I do like Paul says and admonish them once, twice, and then have nothing more to do with them.

[@DPK5201]

"I am the Vine, you are the branches" does not mean Jesus is a vine!

[@michaelogrady232]

@DPK5201 Yes, it does. Not all vines are plants.

[@b-r3106]

​@DPK5201 no one responded to Jesus making that claim in a way that indicates they took Him literally. 'His disciples disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man be a plant?" They did take the teaching about eating His flesh literally.

[@michaelogrady232]

@b-r3106 The Apostles also did not understand. They just knew it would made clear in time. Then, at the Last Supper, all these light bulbs appear over their heads.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

​@@DPK5201 nobody took Vine and Branches literally. They wanted to take Bread of Life figuratively also, but then Jesus got reeeeal specific and said my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. And then when they abandoned Him over this "hard saying" He didn't call them back and say just kidding. He tripled down in this passage and let people leave Him if they couldn't believe it

[@aliciashank7940]

This was a really great video. Thank you.

[@w4in]

Wow very well done. At the end of the day, I don't think objections come from lack of proof, but from what people are used to. People I've talked with that differ in belief on this subject don't seem to care enough to want to think something other than what they were taught or grew up with, even if it might not be true.

[@Zeebopbudoobop]

Can we make a distinction between historic reformed and “reformed” baptists like James White? I’m Presbyterian and our confessions, to varying degrees, affirm the ever virgin Mary.

[@gunsgalore7571]

I don't know if you watch Redeemed Zoomer but you sound like he'd be up your alley.

[@Gaius453]

Yeah I’ve heard some other reformed prots saying something similar and frankly i get it, i would be pretty mad if someone wanted to represent Catholicism while denying almost everything the church says except for one very specific dogma.

[@dennism7532]

I do not know how you have patience for having to continually fight off these idiots. I just don’t have the patience for them.

[@NJHProductions512]

There are a lot of idiots, but James White certainly aint one of them.

[@DPK5201]

Love your display of Christian charity.

[@TheLysineContingency]

Yeah not a fan of the AI art

[@mateusarruda4875]

It just doesn't make sense that Mary was Joseph's WIFE and they didn't have marital relations. Marriage presuposes sexual relation. just read what Jesus said on Matthew 19:1-6 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

[@jadersantana4720]

Hello! Non religious here, trying to learn. Whats the importance of Mary's perpetual virginity to catholic theology?

[@whitevortex8323]

Here's a basic response, there's obviously a lot more depth to it. 1. Mary gave birth to Christ who is God man, it would be unfitting for her to then have children, since the King of the universe became man through her. There could also be doubt about whether Jesus was born from a virgin if she had other children and could perhaps lead to a less dignified view of Christ. 2. Mary is a type of the church who is both virgin and mother. The church is in a mystical sense the bride of Christ and is also virgin and mother of the faithful. 3. Mary is full of grace and possess all virtues, virginity is considered a virtue and a perfection, according to some church fathers who saw the state of virginity as higher than Marriage and is a teaching of the church that virginity exceeds Marriage, since there is total consecration of oneself to God. Mary is the model of all Christians, she hears the word of God and obeys it. 4. It would make Mary a sinner since she would have broken her vow of virginity. See Mary's response to the angel Gabriel "I know not man", which doesn't make sense for her to be shocked if she was engaged unless she had a vow of virginity. There is some outside biblical texts such as the protoevangelium which talks about Mary's vow. 5. There's a prophecy in Ezekiel 44:1-2. Jesus is the temple (he refers to himself as temple in John 2:19), and Mary is considered by catholics as the gate of the temple through which the Lord has entered and none other than the Lord shall enter. This is seen by church fathers such as Augustine. 6. It's part of sacred Tradition and is believed unanimously by all the early Christians as well as some protestant reformers. (as far as I'm aware, please fact check this.) 7. Some church fathers saw the burning bush of Moses as a symbol or type of Christ and Mary. The bush burning yet unscathed. Similarly, God dwells in Mary, yet her virginity is unscathed so to speak. She is preserved intact and remains intact. 8. Mary's perpetual virginity serves as a eschatological sign for the future eternal life of Christians in heaven whether will be no marriage or sex. Finally, we just love our Lady. She is so wonderful.

[@NiBearla]

​@whitevortex8323 ​@whitevortex8323 This argument makes no sense to me, despite the clear verses about Christ's brothers and even historical sorces like Josephus saying that James was the brother of Jesus. But, even ignoring that, the rest are not needed or wrong. Firstly, it would not be unfitting, but according to Paul, would actually be almost sinful for her to deny conjugal rights bit for a time, especially without a verse saying the both took vows of chastity. As to point 4, no where does it state Mary was sinless. All have sinned. There was only one who lived a perfect sinless life. And as to it breaking a vow, what vow. Stating she had not known a man is not to say she took a vow of virginity, but to say that she had not fornicated or had sex before marriage so she could nor possibly be pregnant. The arguments that make the most sense are the tradition arguments, but that only matters if you say tradition is equal to scripture. Yes, we love Mary. It is right for all people to call her blessed, but there are serious problems for this idea and no problems if it is wrong. Mary having more children does not mean she didn't give birth to the Son of God. Having kids within the bounds of marriage is not sinful and is said to be good since it comes from God, and to wrong to withhold as it puts the man into temptation. It is also good and designed to be so by God. When read in context, both with how it's used in a sentence and Jesus's response, how Paul refers to James, and other historical sources, the plain reading is not confusing. Even in the verse where it is said is not his father, and his brothers, even in this there is no error, as it is assumed by all that Joseph was Christ's father and that they were his brothers. This even strengthens other areas of the bible, the Pharisees didnt believe Christ was miraculously conceived, and he was even slandered with statements like we were not born of sexual immorality. I also want to add that a. I would not have commented other than the person you responded too is non religious so i wanted to add something and b. that I don't mean this to simply argue, but I trully wish to talk and even bring something that you may not have thought of. Mary is trully blessed, but it does no good to add that which is not needed and that which when plainly read makes no sense. I will add context for what I mean by that. When I first heard of eternally virgin Mary I thought it was teaching some miracle made her eternally virgin since I knew she had children after the fact. When I looked into it I was more confused. When you read, and even when you go back to the original language, the context makes clear the opposite. Saying it means his cousins makes no sense and when used in that way also means the response would be he who obeys is my cousin or my mother. The context is clear, Paul is clear who James is, and so is Josephus. And again, even in context, Jesus was to those speaking not considered born of a virgin. They called him the son of the carpenter Joseph and then list his brothers and sisters. In makes no sense to say cousins in this context, both sentence wise and the context of we know this man is not his father and mother and brother and sisters these who we also know. Finally, I do hope this both of help to the original asker and even too you, and that you may give some of these thought. I obviously believe diffently to you, but I do have reasons and hope they are thoughtful, but either way God bless and have a good day.

[@FROGfish03]

1:07 Protestant, but enjoy your content, but right here we have an issue. The example of “until” in Greek not always implying a reversal is not equivalent, as the context of the two are different. In the case of Mary, she lived past the time that “until” specifies and would be fully able, and in my view of marriage encouraged to have more children, but your example is “until death” at which point there is no way to to have children without a resurrection miracle.

[@ghostapostle7225]

The context being different does not alter that the term can have different meanings. When Jesus say "I am with you always, until the end of the age", it's not impossible the Jesus will decide not be with us anymore at some point, but obviously this is not the case. The same way, the use of "until" about Mary does not means necessarily that she had childrens or marital relations after giving birth. By the broader context of the gospels we know how to interpret Jesus words in the great commission and also we know how to interpret this passage from Matthew 1 (I recommend Joe Heschmeyer's video on the topic).

[@bearistotle2820]

At 6:40, he provides an example from Jewish literature that meets even this narrow standard. Thus, the two terms for "until" can be used interchangeably, and the earlier example also stands against James White's argument.

[@daviddabrowski01]

In terms of ‘until’, in Greek it’s a temporal place holder. For example if I say, “stay in your room until your father gets home”. We don’t know what happened after. The father could have come and said, you can come out or the father may have come home and said, no you’re punished for the rest of the night, stay in your room. Until just denotes that period of time.

[@jerb6817]

Don’t try to argue with them. If people are convinced by arguments this bad, there isn’t much reason to argue with them. The passage on its own seems to imply that Joseph waited for awhile to “know” Mary but implies he did know her. That is the clearest reading. But Catholics come along and say “well, the term doesn’t HAVE to mean that. It doesn’t matter what context implies. Because we see it examples of this phrase used elsewhere in a different way, we are just gonna go with that.” That is not good exegesis. Just because a phrase can mean something different in a different context does not mean you can divorce it from the context it is in and say it can mean this or that.

[@benjaminhancock9014]

I understand what you are saying however Trent was simply showing that the word until does not always used as a reversal. And in regards to your point of false equivalency, the ability for something to change does not mean that it has to have changed. Trent also references the passage where Christ says "I will be with you until the end if the age", this does not imply a reversal nor is a reversal impossible. This point does not prove that a reversal didn't take place but simply that this passage doesn't prove one did. It is true that Mary would have been able to and in normal marriages having more children would be encouraged however, Mary and Joseph had a very unique marriage. One set apart by God for a special purpose. The Bible does not definitively teach on this matter one way or another. People can interoperate different passages in different ways and come to different conclusions, and for those who reject the teaching authority of the church that is as sure as you can be.

[@JPKloess]

Is that an AI thumbnail? Sorry to the artist if that's just their style, but if it's AI then ew. Please use real artwork. Edit: Thanks for changing it!

[@gor764]

Oof, that AI thumbnail...

[@letadesanto6825]

What? William Adolphe Bougereau, "The Virgin of the Lilies," 1899. Look it up, all his works of Mary are beautiful.

[@letadesanto6825]

Nvrmnd I realize that I'm seeing the new thumbnail

[@flyingkiwicjk]

The fact is, there is no logical reason for Mary to have been a perpetual virgin. Sex is not sinful. Consummation of marriage was a blessed occurrence. If it was Jesus cousins that are supposedly mentioned, why was the Greek word for cousins not used? The simple truth is Mary and Joseph had sex and other children as is the normal practice of marriage blessed by God.

[@Tonihuber153]

Exactly!

[@RenewedPerspective3626]

Sex is not sinful but its existence is infralapsarian

[@nleposk1]

Why would she remain a virgin? Sex is holy in matrimony, and Paul said husband and wives she not withhold from one another to keep them from sin.

[@zkeus]

Genuine question: why does this matter?

[@NTSPTQ]

typical RC pearl clutching, that's why

[@eucharistenjoyer]

This question goes both ways. Catholics and Orthodox believe and respect Sacred Tradition, and Mary's celibacy strengthens her complete commitment to Christianity, similar to St. Paul. The fact this was a held belief since the time of the Early Church by most Church Fathers and even by some of the reformers makes this question more directed towards protestants who only made the opposite view relevant enough to be discussed more than 1500 years later. I feel like if this view was held only by the Orthodox Church protestant apologists wouldn't even bat an eye.

@@NTSPTQ because most Protestants think mary is just like you and i. That she fornicated etc

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@eucharistenjoyer Her perpetual vriginity doesn't make sense in light of common sense. Married people have sex. I do not know a single married couple where both parties bodies parts still are sexually active that have never had sex. Maybe people who have married in their eighties, and those who married sick people who are about to die. But never in a normal marriage like Mary and Josephs do we see a lack of sexual activity throughout the entirety of the marriage. And the fact people back then believed something does not make it true. They believed plenty of wrong things. Most of the church fathers would probably not believe the earth is round. The question isn't whether they believed it. The question is, what was their evidence? Why did they believe she stayed a virgin? What eyewitness testimony or records do we have? Where is Mary's statement she was going to stay celibate forever? There is nothing. No evidence. It isn't our job to disprove her virginity. It is your job to explain why it should be believed in the first place by bringing good evidence

[@eucharistenjoyer]

​@@gospelfreak5828 Are you seriously comparing scientific knowledge of the shape of the Earth with theological knowledge of doctrine? Do you put the same weight in both? Would you dismiss other theological knowledge the Church Fathers taught, like the Trinity and Christ's Divinity, just because they didn't know some facts about science? Are you being serious right now? Also, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. That's the same reasoning Atheists use to dismiss the Exodus narrative as a myth, but we know that 90% of the papyri from Egypt were lost. But I wonder what would be enough evidence for you. Aren't the Church Father's writing from the 2nd Century, like St. Irenaeus evidence enough? Or their evidence is only good enough to the extent it agrees with men from the 16th Century?

[@ebeleingram8048]

Why would she have remained a virgin? Titles often stay true after someone's death and the fact that she miraculously had a baby as a virgin would certainly qualify. What stopped me from being Catholic is realizing i have to submit to so many weird theological leaps such as this, Mary being sinless, and transtantuation (or however you say it).

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

Then you obviously have john 6 completely missing from your Bible. Jesus gives very specific words in the bread of life discourse.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

Transubstantiation is not a leap. It's the plain words of the Bible. The rest isn't a leap either, it's just not always as obvious as transubstantiation

[@ebeleingram8048]

@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal What verse supports it so that I can read it

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

@@ebeleingram8048 All of John 6 would be good to read for the context surrounding it, but I suppose you could say the crux of the matter comes down to verse 51 John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

[@ebeleingram8048]

@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal I did read it. Leap is not fair to say, but I still stand by not approving of letting certain less concrete teachings be dogma.

[@grantflippin7808]

I have no idea why Catholics worship Mary to the point of of elevating her beyond God's intentions

[@bluecomb5376]

Fortunately, you have been misinformed! We do not worship Mary

[@grantflippin7808]

@@bluecomb5376 WOW, so Catholics don't pray to Mary for intersession?

[@bluecomb5376]

@@grantflippin7808 We only worship the most Holy Trinity. Asking for intercession is not worship. Are you worshiping your friend when you ask them to pray for you?

[@grantflippin7808]

@@bluecomb5376 yes, if you prayed to your friend to pray for you it would be worship

[@DPK5201]

​@bluecombsure looks like it!

[@noseal543]

To my knowledge the first use of the term adelphos in the LXX is in Genesis 4:2, where it is used of Abel being the brother of Cain. Also to my knowledge some ancient Hebrew and Christian writings, and some modern day teachers (the Shepherd's Chapel) share a view that says Cain is the son of Satan, while Abel is the son of Adam, this would mean that the very first use of the word adelphos is applied to half brothers who share the same mother, but have different fathers.

[@csongorarpad4670]

Godspeed, Mr. Trent!

[@juliusalbe2070]

Iam not super educated in the topic, but I wonder why catholics think of mary as perpetual virgin in the first place. Why is that? What is the problem with josephs and her marriage being 'normal' after jesus' birth? EDIT: Thank you guys for your replies. That really helps understand the catholic position. Also i did not want to make it sound heretical or anything with my replies, sorry if it came across that way. And i also understand that my arguments wont change a viewpoint that has been cultivated for that long. HOWEVER as someone who holds scripture above church tradition, i did not find the arguments for her eternal virignity very convincing, because scripture does not make it as clear. And that's not just my opinion. A biblical marriage includes sex even if a temporary vow to abstination is made and i dont really see an argument as to why this particular marriage should be different. APART from that i can be wrong of course, but that is no problem for me. If at the end of my life God tells me, that i was wrong about marys virginity then thats okay with me because i dont think that's a lifesaving truth or anything like that. Y'all have a blessed day :)

[@TheBlinkyImp]

Well there's the official Catholic reason for it, which Trent can provide. But the actual reason is that Catholics have long had a perverse idea of sex. They think that Mary having sex with her husband somehow makes her less pure, even though that's what God commands husbands and wives to do. That's the impression I've gotten at least. Catholics have all sorts of unique sexual restrictions that I think come from this idea of sex as inherently impure.

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

The short answer is that the biblical data supports Mary having taken a vow of virginity before her marriage to Joseph, or else her response to Gabriel at the Annunciation would make no sense. We know these vows did exist because Numbers references them. Why would she do this? Maybe she was serving some consecrated role in the Temple. Why would God choose someone who would do this? That gets speculative, but considering that both Jesus and Paul are very explicit that it is better to be single for the sake of the kingdom than married, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say God was looking for someone in the holiest state possible to bear Him to the world.

[@Junnelayos]

Because it would have been awkward for Joseph to have sexual relation with someone who literally gave birth to God who is Holy. There's nothing wrong with sex between husband and wife, but if you believe Jesus is God incarnate it will make Mary the new Ark of the Covenant which make her the holiest of all women.

[@Judge_Jej]

Why does your theology require men having sex with Jesus' mother when even Luther and Calvin agreed on her perpetual virginity

[@burger3856]

Because the perpetual virginity narrative is true.

[@ConservativeMirror]

So in both points, the more straightforward interpretation is the non-virginity of Mary, but you just have a theological preference so you deny those.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

How can it be the more straightforward interpretation when all the early church fathers *and* the protestant founders were in agreement that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

[@Ben-hn4nw]

@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal really? All the early church fathers agreed on that?

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

@@Ben-hn4nw there might have been a handful that didn't talk about it and I think there was one that denied it iirc. The one that adopted several heterodox ideas later in life. But pretty much unanimous and adamant.

[@andreiyd]

No offence, but who cares if Mary remained or not a virgin? She had an important role, as John the Baptist had in Jesus mission, but both of them were humans, and the salvation is is just thru Jesus death. Same thing as mediator, He is the only worthy mediator due to His God nature and the fact that he beared the sin of the whole world. Nobody else can come close in scope to Jesus. He is from another league. That's why this whole debate of the saints, virgins and raptured people is meaningless. There is the Trinity and everybody else. Mathew 11:11 speaks really highly about John the Baptist, but let's not start to make a cult for him now. Sure, between us, the sinners, there are some which might have a more important role than other, but when is comes about salvation, mediation there is and it always will be only one: Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God, He is God, He was certified by God.

[@jorge28624]

it is important because is the Truth, just because it does not serve a practical purpose does not mean is not worth defending.

[@jacuz169]

​@@jorge28624 Nonsensical comment. Mary's "virginity" has NO RELEVANCE to Yeshua's message and movement. What "Truth?" Waste of time defending an issue that is meaningless.

[@andreiyd]

@@jorge28624 Truth might be that I've eaten eggs this morning. But I don't think that's that important to be defended. Maybe John the Baptist was virgin as well.. who knows what stories and translations we can find and twist to establish that he was indeed a virgin. But why bother? why should a christian spend his time and energy with this? We don't plan to worship neither John or Mary. Right?

[@bobaphat3676]

yes it does have implications because it tells us even more that Christ was born of an exceptional woman and that in turn helps us to worship Christ in an even greater manner. Mary and Christ are not in competition, Mary complements Christ, Mary helps us raise eyes ever more to Christ, Mary only serves to help us love Christ more. By trying to understand the Great Mother of God, we are understanding just how Great our Saviour is. The same is said for all the Saints, God is continually in the process of cooperating with his Creation for His Glory. So all this "it doesn't matter" is missing the point. It matters! I see it more as Anti-Marian rhetoric, understand that Mary is just a created being, as St Montfort said, 'she is a mere atom compared to the Almighty'....having said that, this lowly Virgin bore the Son of God, she is worthy of tremendous respect, admiration, veneration in her role in the Incarnation and at the Consummation of time when Christ comes in his glory. There is nothing superfluous here! Every detail matters! Because God Almighty has ordained it take place in this way (from all eternity) for his glory!

[@andreiyd]

​@@bobaphat3676 Nothing is taken away from the woman who delivered and raised Jesus (He was God before Marry, so she is not the mother in that sense). She was virgin when Jesus was born. She was pure, faithful, a wonderful and a really good example of a woman. All of this not Anti-Marianic. We protestants, just react on a lot of doctrines like papacy and so on where catholics have build their tradition, and now they are here to force everything just to justify their previous stuff. If Mary stayed virgin, that's awesome. If she had more children that's awesome as well. (I know that catholics sees motherhood as something valuable). I don't understand why we have to "keep" he virgin, unless we either plan to worship her or we have to justify tradition. As an agnostic on this issue, the Bible does not let me believe that she stayed virgin, but contrary is telling me that she had more children in multiple places. She had this special role, as Joseph had, as John the Baptist

[@darlameeks]

As a Catholic, I accept the Marian dogmas. I do wish the Scriptures were more explicit about Mary's perpetual virginity, however. The way it has to be explained to make it fit the Scriptures is unfortunate. Also, I am bothered a bit by the lack of veneration for life-long virginity in the Jewish tradition from which our faith derives. On the other hand, the pagans did have dedicated virgins; i.e., the vestal virgins who were priestesses to the goddess Vesta. Some Gnostics flat out believed that sex is sinful in any context. It is possible that Judge Deborah (see Judges 4 & 5) may have been unmarried, as the reference "wife of Lapidoth" (Judges 4:4) may also be translated as "woman of fire" or "woman of light". She could have been a life-long virgin, dedicated to her service as the leader of Israel...but this is unclear. Had Mary and Joseph engaged in marital relations after Jesus was born, it would not have diminished Mary's purity in any way. Marital intimacy is the holy symbol of the Church's intimacy with Christ. However, the Magisterium has spoken on the subject, so I will trust them.

[@peterhenryzepeda3484]

Elijah was venerated in Jewish tradition for being a virgin. Also the Annunciation narrative in Luke only makes sense if Mary was a perpetual virgin.

[@brittanywhite1318]

As a Protestant I don't understand how a married woman does not consummate her marriage after the birth of Jesus. I would see nothing wrong if she was not a virgin after the birth of Christ because sex within Biblical marriage is not sinful. I can understand some of the points in your rebuttal but I just don't understand the why I guess. Like what would be the reason or need for her to remain a virgin and how would people know that? Like did they tell people? I'm not opposed to the possibility of her perpetual virginity but from my own logic it doesn't make sense so I ask because I genuinely want to understand.

[@Tonihuber153]

Trent is contradicting the gospel of Matthew.

[@GutsStan]

@@Tonihuber153Correct

[@JoAnnFuir]

Not all married couples have sexual relations. Perhaps Joseph was so old that he couldn't engage in sexual intercourse? Only Mary and Joseph know the answer to that. Joseph could have been more of a guardian?

[@Tonihuber153]

@@JoAnnFuir: Matthew wrote that Joseph only abstained from having sex with Mary before the birth of Christ.

[@jonathanw1106]

Trent's logic here: The bible says "Adultery is very bad." In the bible, it is possible the word bad means cool, in fact we see it used that way 1 in 10 or 15 times. Therefore its possible the verse is saying Adultery is cool. And thats why our teaching that adultery is cool is not unbiblical

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

No, that is not even close to how Trent laid out the argument

[@jonathanw1106]

@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal care to explain where I went wrong

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

@@jonathanw1106 bad being used to mean cool is a modern slang use of the word. Trent is not overlaying modern language onto the Biblical texts. He is referring back to the use of those Greek words at the time the biblical texts were written. Also, your analogy is saying Trent is looking at this one line that has a word and he's substituting that word and getting the wrong meaning from it. But we don't know adultery is wrong just because of the one verse within the ten commandments. There are also other instances and inferences made from other passages that show us the same. Likewise, Trent is dealing with this one line that has caused trouble and confusion., but there are other arguments from other passages in the Bible that point to Mary's perpetual virginity. But mainly it's that he's not putting the modern interpretation over the word

[@jonathanw1106]

@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal I don't think you understand what an analogy is. I'm using different words and terms to illustrate why the logical reason Trent used is flawed. I'm not making a statement about adultery or whether it is wrong in the bible.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

@@jonathanw1106 I wasn't either.

[@mrdevonscook]

This argument is so strange and defies good reason and common sense. Clearly Mary carried and delivered the Christ child as a virgin. She then went on to have other children the regular way. The mental gymnastics Trent is going through here feel strange on this channel, which is typically a bastion of common sense and faithful reasoning.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

I don't know how you can so confidently say she *clearly* had other children when the early church fathers and even the protestant founders all said she was a perpetual virgin

[@mrdevonscook]

Appealing to early church fathers or Protestants who followed the same reasoning just acknowledges that they did the same strange thing Trent is doing.

[@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal]

@@mrdevonscook I......seriously? You discount the early church fathers and even the protestant founders? I have not great love or respect for Luther or Calvin but I do know they were educated and well read. Yet somehow you think your modern day understanding brings you to better conclusions than the Greek speakers hundreds of years closer to Jesus time and culture? The towering arrogance is astounding

[@mrdevonscook]

I’m not arguing for any disrespect. I have great respect for those you mentioned. I’m just saying I think this particular point is a stretch. I’m sure we could pull up plenty of quotes from early Christian teachers that we would not 100% agree with today. Many Popes have corrected false teachings from this era. We can venerate church fathers and still acknowledge errant teaching.

[@haronsmith8974]

@@mrdevonscook you literally have scripture giants like Saint Jerome who has original texts fighting for her perpetual virginity. It’s not just a couple of Church Fathers.

[@OmegaSaiyanPrince]

I don't know if the creator of this video or anyone of any side will see this but I myself am confused now. All of these comments after almost 3 hours of debate between the Catholic and Protestant livestream 8 months ago on another channel has boiled to a bloody choking war with each other. "How dare you hereticals leave the CC you are doomed for Hell" "you are not a real believer unless youre a catholic youre not with Christ" is the entire message and feeling I get from the catholics and then protestants just fighting again over this. I am new to this and Im just so confused and honestly afraid a little. I don't understand why these denominations we hold have to be so crucial and condemning. I want to follow Jesus Christ and what He says. I Want to give my life and heart to Him by following what the Word says. I dont have a church home. I don't have a denomination. I just struggled (still do) with horrible porn addictions and just cried out to Christ to save me and to change my life forever. I want to ve saved. Many times ive said this and done this, that I truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God. That He is God that came down and died for our sins. He took the punishment we rightfully deserved and bore it on Himself. His holy precious blood was shed for us so that we are saved. Then He rose again on the third day and now the power of sin is beaten and death has no sting. Christ Is Risen and He is Victorious. So why, why does everyone have to condemn others if I believe the Gospel and want to follow Jesus? Why am I doomed for not being a Catholic or in the CC. I just dont understand and I want to understand, I trust Jesus and not Man, so why are we at each others necks....i want to sob because this isnt making me assured in anything except that I want to be with Jesus forever and to get rid of this disgusting habitual sin of lust and I cant without Him. I want to serve Christ. Someone help...i will not abandon Christ I will not say ,"this is too complicated I will just leave" i just want to know why im demonized or a heretic or a true non believer or a false convert for not having a denomination or anything like that..i want to follow Jesus to my death..by faith..

[@geoffjs]

Pray & seek the Truth of His One True Church.

[@elementofepic1338]

You're not alone in that man. I've been struggling with all of those things as well. I can't speak for the Catholic side since I'm protestant, but I hate the division as well amongst everyone professing Christ as Lord.

[@DPK5201]

Jesus said " My yolk is easy and my burden is light.". Don't fall into the trap of works theology or striving to do things. Repent. Believe. Be baptized. And focus on your savior

[@zachj61]

I'm satisfied with the cousins argument, but the more I look into the life of Mary and Joseph, the more I'm leaning towards the belief that Joseph was a widower

[@carlomagno3951]

The scriptures has never ever referred to anyone else as “Son of Mary” other than Jesus Christ. Furthermore, they also don’t refer to anyone else as “Son of Joseph”, that is also only referred to Jesus Christ in John 6:42. Both arguments that the “brother of Jesus” are Jesus’ half brothers or stepbrothers are not supported by the holy scriptures. This makes the case that the “brothers” are more likely Jesus’ cousins.

[@daltonburroughs3811]

Protestant here: Why would Mary choose to remain a virgin after being married? Also, if she isn't an eternal virgin, that doesn't hurt her status at all. It just means Mary and Joseph did what married people do and that is in no way wrong. Even if by the text of the Bible you can't fully confirm she is not a perpetual virgin, that doesn't automatically mean she was one. I think just based off normal human activity after marriage it seems more likely she did not remain virgin.

[@geoffjs]

Sacred Tradition says that Mary was consecrated as a virgin at a young age. When she was selected to bear Jesus she needed a protector, hence Joseph who is commonly believed to have been a widow with children from a prior marriage, hence Jesus may have had half “brothers” but not blood brothers. Remember that Mary is also regarded as the New Eve, Ark of the Covenant & Queen of Heaven so she played a special role. Read the early fathers for more information about her various roles which was known to the early Christians

[@DPK5201]

Proof please. People believed all sorts of contradictory things in the first centuries.

[@savagemuir9360]

Aaagggh! 2 Samuel 6:23 wasn't written in Greek! So now you've opened up the debate if you can equivocate the LXX contemporary usage of 2nd century (BC) Greek language and context into the 5th century Hebrew culture, language, and context. Different languages, different cultures, different times, different generations. There's no way you can cherry-pick a Greek word in the LXX and apply the hermeneutics to Hebrew understanding three centuries earlier.

[@Charlotte_Martel]

The Eastern Orthodox solution of Jesus's brothers being His stepbrothers from Joseph's 1st marriage is particularly elegant and makes more sense than holding them to be the cousins of Jesus. Is there a reason why the Catholic Church rejects this explanation?

[@andrewpatton5114]

She doesn't. Since neither Scripture nor Tradition resolves the matter, Catholics are free to hold either opinion.

[@Charlotte_Martel]

​@@andrewpatton5114Seriously, thank you for the clarification. When I was a student in Catholic school, that explanation was always presented as something the Orthodox believed but Catholics were solidly in the "cousins camp." It helps to know that this explanation is not prohibited to Catholics.

[@geraldmurphy321]

The Adelphoi explanation is a devastating blow to this protestant argument. It is a blow that this argument should now never see the light of day.

[@Tonihuber153]

Actually, that explanation is very weak.

[@pam7500]

Mary was a virgin when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and she became preg#%#& with Jesus. But, after His birth, she had other children in the natural human way. While she was highly favored by God, she was still a human being and functioned in a human way. The Bible said she had sons and daughters.

[@Tonihuber153]

You obviously read the New Testament.

[@cbooth151]

The Bible clearly shows that Mary had other children besides Jesus; the Catholic Church’s teaching that she did not is what has created a controversy. Catholic author J. Gilles, who thoroughly examined all the Scriptural evidence on the subject, concluded: “Briefly and in measured language, out of faithfulness to the [Catholic] Church, I believe I can sum up my investigation as follows. . . . The FOUR CANONICAL GOSPELS provide concordant evidence . . . that Jesus had real brothers and sisters in his family. . . . In the face of this coherent block of proof the traditional position [of the Catholic Church] seems vulnerable and fragile.”

[@Tonihuber153]

You are correct. The four gospels talk explicitly about physical brothers and sisters.

[@cbooth151]

@@Tonihuber153 You are so right. Unfortunately, I have not convinced any Catholics to accept the fact that Jesus had brothers _and_ sisters. Still trying.