Are the Marian Dogmas Historically Credible?

[@BecketCook]

Nice!

[@jamestrotter3162]

The biblical Mary would be appalled at the false teaching that is centered around her.

[@nicklowe_]

Or maybe flattered ? 😂

[@Wgaither1]

@@nicklowe_i doubt it

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@nicklowe_ I could only see the sinful and fleshly side of Mary being flattered by this undue deification. Heavenly Mary is perfected now, as all the saints in heaven are. I use the term saints as all saved believers, the same way the bible does.

[@nicklowe_]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 This was a joke, hence the laughy face

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@nicklowe_ Ok 😁

[@danielhixon8209]

Not only is there (so far as I can find) little to no evidence in the earliest sources that the assumption actually happened, but the Roman Church - by making this a dogma and attaching anathemas to it - is in the strange position of accepting early fathers as saints who don’t believe this while at the same time anathematizing contemporary believers who also don’t believe this. It is a glaring inconsistency in the Church of Rome caused by over reach of authority.

[@MrWoaaaaah]

Some thoughts... I think you're misrepresenting Catholicism by calling it 'the church of Rome'. It's a universal system. And I've always felt that the biggest issue with rejecting the Marian dogmas is not that you disbelieve them per se, but that you reject an institution that Christ established to define such matters. I appreciate that Catholics often argue from history for their beliefs. But Catholic epistemology is more complex than that. We also believe, based on the nature of the Church as revealed in Scripture and through history, that the Holy Spirit leads, protects and guides His people into all truth. As such, it's not fatal to Catholicism if the Marian dogmas were more explacated in later centuries. If the majority of Christendom came to accept these beliefs, for over 1000 years, then it warrants belief. In addition, many of the protestant dogmas have even less historical asseststion than the Marian dogmas.

[@joeoleary9010]

​@@MrWoaaaaah The Holy Spirit card wins all arguments on Catholic history. We learn that if people are taught a made--up doctrine that's nowhere found in the early church, and if enough people believe it over time, then it "warrants belief," i.e., because legitimate, accurate history.

[@MrWoaaaaah]

@@joeoleary9010 blame Jesus for making the Church and sending His Spirit. But on a side note, the Marian dogmas do have patristic evidence and implicit biblical bases.

[@choicemeatrandy6572]

@@joeoleary9010 Also a pope can teach literal heresy in public debate.....but it doesn't count....cause he wasn't speaking ex cathedra.

[@cmac369]

Not that strange. The church fathers didn't believe it because it wasn't infallibly taught.

[@maryriverson]

Thanks!

[@natebozeman4510]

Thank you so much for your work, Gavin. After Bertuzzi converted, I started looking into RC because I didn't know much about it, and they have very effective rhetorical talking points that make you feel icky about not being a Catholic. Your work has almost single-handedly made me confident in my Protestantism, and I no longer have ecclesial anxiety. Truly, thank you.

[@ottovonbaden6353]

That was also how I found Truth Unites. The overall online reaction to Bertuzzi converting has been fascinating, albeit regrettable at times.

[@AshtonSWilson]

Gavin is a good example of how debates and apologetics can be done well. These should not be used to slander, attack, or dominate, but instead to offer careful, loving, and biblical responses to those we disagree with. Apologetics has a reputation for being triumphalist and argumentative, but it really should be an avenue for dialogue about important issues. Otherwise, it just becomes a shouting match, like many debates seem to become.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@ottovonbaden6353 What do you mean by the reaction to Bertuzzi converting has been regrettable? I just think if he's finding a deeper peace and walk w/ God then it's all good for him. I'm not Catholic, and don't get any icky feeling for not becoming Catholic. I'm just looking for unity as much as we can find, even while believing different doctrines.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@AshtonSWilson I've enjoyed the debates between Catholics and protestants. No matter if they get triumphant or trying to one up, it's been a wealth of knowledge. Though I do love Gavin's gentle approach. He's not looking to convert them or change minds, just to show why he believes as he does and to give a well informed case for it.

[@malcolmlayton2050]

Unfortunately there are certain elements who feel the need to denigrate their brothers and sisters in Christ for not believing the Marion doctrines and their supremacist mindset is quite Islamic in the way they insult and accuse

[@jbheavenlyfootman]

Thank you, Dr. Ortlund, for graciously contending for biblical truth. I’m a confessional Lutheran, with a SBC background, and I appreciate your ministry!

[@deesteven]

Becket is an extremely valuable brother in the Lord. God Bless him and yourself too, Gavin. Thanks for all of your work. Hope all is well!

[@Irene77545]

The crossover I never know could happen!! ✨🙌

[@ottovonbaden6353]

There have been some good ones lately. Redeemed Zoomer and Truth Unites, Becket Cook and Truth Unites...here's hoping they continue!

[@palabraviva5840]

I “might” be the most appreciative of these teachings/ discussions about the RCC! Why? I have been a missionary in Mexico for 12 years and Catholicism reigns here but it looks so different here than in the USA… there’s witchcraft mixed in I’m some places.. they have a ton of saints and other things. It’s so sad, for the most part these people are so lost and have no idea. When we come into a village stepped in traditions of the RCC we most of the time get immediately persecuted.. those who accept the gospel and start studying the Bible etc. get ram out of their villages sometimes.. get their water and electricity taken away and even sometimes killed by the Catholics.. it’s a mess! So I’m super grateful for these videos and will use them… sure wish they were in Spanish too

[@umnovomundo3738]

Same here in Brazil

[@chessplayer6632]

That’s pretty shocked for someone who had no idea. Thanks for sharing

[@joycegreer9391]

That's the legacy of Catholicism.

[@palabraviva5840]

@@chessplayer6632 you bet.. I wish more people knew.. maybe I should make it known more 😄

[@palabraviva5840]

@@joycegreer9391 pretty much

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Oh wow, this is wonderful to see an interview w/ you and Becket. I'll go watch it on his channel for now. Still look forward to seeing it dropped on your channel. The comments and dialogue between protestants and Catholics here are refreshing.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

The 5-6 hour rebuttal at 3 AM incoming.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Yes, lol. Trent Horn and other Catholic apologists could easily crank a series out of this one. God love them.

[@gto2111]

I recently came across a video from a few months ago where Trent addresses Gavin on the bodily assumption. Being someone who appreciates hearing multiple perspectives, I find it valuable to listen to both sides of the discussion.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@gto2111 I do listen the Catholic side of things quite a bit. I've listened to a bit of Trent Horn too. His rebuttals tend to be long and sometime multi part rebuttals. I also find him a bit too manipulative and tactical in not just rebutting what was actually said. Gavin gently called him out on this in a short rebuttal that Gavin did.

[@gto2111]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 In my personal opinion, Gavin can be oversensitive at times. I see him as somewhat effeminate. He criticize individuals like Michael Lofton and Trent etc, who I believe are much kinder than I am. If I were to become an apologist, Gavin would not approve of me lol.

[@gto2111]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 It's the same when Christians respond to Muslims, atheists etc. The objection can be short, but the response can be longer.

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

Good work! The massive sudden increase in Marian piety at such a late date is a very important observation, especially in light of the high stakes it has for soteriology.

[@countryboyred]

It was one of the biggest stumbling blocks that stopped me from becoming Catholic. It’s so clearly an accretion of dogma.

[@tategarrett3042]

I think this encapsulates the core of Protestant concerns with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Almost every other issue can be either resolved or simply set aside in order to have a closer union as different members of Christ's Church, but the existence of infallibly defined dogmas which have little if any evidence for them early on, and which are protected by anathema is a of the utmost concern. Teachings like this put the very salvation of those who discuss them on the line - they're not a matter of whether Christ is spiritually or physically present in the Eucharist or some other issue where the differences ultimately end up in interpretation or expression of a practice. This nothing less than an irreformable and inflexible dogma being defined, with no Biblical, and even no historical support for centuries after the death of Christ to back it up. And further, it carries with it the pain of anathema which was historically understood to be synonymous with expulsion from the church and damnation. This is very concerning to Protestants who want to live in accordance with the teachings and practices of the early church.

[@dman7668]

And which protestant Church is doing exactly that? All of them? Some of them? None of them?

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

" Teachings like this put the very salvation of those who discuss them on the line"... I'm not positive how you mean this. Many protestants think it makes Catholics not saved. I'm fairly sure you don't mean it that way. I don't see it that way anymore. Catholics think there is considerable historical backing for their beliefs and refer to the church fathers. As a protestant, what many early Christians believed (who held power and esteem) is not my deciding factor in what I believe now. Gavin has been good at digging up many other church fathers who disagreed, or only agreed in part. Still the ultimate decider for me, as a sola scriptura Christian is, is it clear and evident in the bible, esp. the NT?

[@joycegreer9391]

Absolutely!

[@joycegreer9391]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Catholicism has made it a salvation issue. Salvation of "Catholics" is problematic, not to say impossible. Catholicism is all about church father writings and tradition, and not so much about scripture.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@dman7668 Strawman argument.

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

The Assumption of Mary is just that, an Assumption.

[@johnvitelli3862]

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. Revelation 11:19 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Revelation 12:1 There is only 1 Church guided by the Paraclete the Holy Ghost and that is Jesus Christ Holy Catholic Church.. be careful going after Jesus Christ Holy Mother it will lead to hell .

[@KnightFel]

@@johnvitelli3862 where does the Bible say that not believing in Mary as you state her to be sends you to hell? No where. Those verses you quoted have absolutely nothing to do with Mary. She has no idea people even pray to her and she’s not suffering in the presence of the Lord. It’s all man made dogma. Be careful adding Mary and papist dogma to the gospel, it will send you to hell.

[@anne.ominous]

@@johnvitelli3862 ​​⁠ are those verses supposed to prove the assumption of Mary or something? Even though neither Mary nor an assumption is mentioned?

[@johnvitelli3862]

@@anne.ominous the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible do you believe in the Trinity ?

[@johnvitelli3862]

@@anne.ominous who has the AUTHORITY over the Bible ? Shouldn’t it be the Church that put it together in the 4th century?

[@coolmuso6108]

I love how the anathema says that those who reject the dogma “will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” You’d think that if you incur the wrath of God that would be sufficient, right? 😆 It’s just more Roman nonsense that detracts from even God’s very own wrath. Even that isn’t sufficient…

[@dannysitumorang6196]

I think the mystery of Mary's end can be compared to Moses. Archangel Michael hid Moses' body so the people of Israel will not build a shrine on his bones so they might perform rituals on the shrine to worship Moses. God knew this was the devil's plan. Imagine if there is a known location of Mary's tomb. I thank God it remains a mystery.

[@harrygarris6921]

And the reverse is true with Christ's tomb. The Romans conveniently built a pagan shrine right on top of the place to mark its location so that later on when the Roman empire became Christian they were able to locate Golgotha and build the church of the Holy Sepulchre where Christ's body had lain without much difficulty.

[@garrett2514]

The Orthodox Church has a location which Tradition says is where the Theotokos was buried. There is a church, just like all of the other Holy sites in the Holy Land. It isn’t a source of paganism. The reason why St. Michael took Moses’ body was because he was holy. Satan had no claim on his body because he was holy.

[@duckymomo7935]

@@garrett2514actually no, that couldn’t be the reason because in the transfiguration, Elijah was also there. Could have been anyone but it’s those two prophets.

[@garrett2514]

@@duckymomo7935 how does that relate to what I said?

[@alwilson3204]

It is fairly well known when and where she died and there are those near Jerusalem that are cognizant of her gravesite.

[@Iifewithbamikale]

MOST LEGENDARY CROSSOVER

[@coryscook91]

Not now baby, new Gavin Ortlund vid just dropped

[@PastorHan1776]

Thank you for this.

[@gabrielj.ramirez3843]

Really enjoying the recent videos lately, God bless ur ministry!!

[@Jackie.2025]

I love Becket❤. Thanks for this great video!

[@CamGaylorMusic]

I think for people such as myself we crave tradition but at the same time crave truth. Tradition without truth is nothing. I have a very hard time worshipping in a modern evangelical church. I’ve tried it. For me confessional Lutheranism is the only place I’ve felt comfortable. It’s not perfect but it seems better to me then the other options I’ve come across. I always learn from your videos Gavin. Romans Catholics have tradition but they also have a lot of baggage that I’m not down with. A lot of their teachings set my bullcrap alarm off.

[@Arvak777]

Similar for me. The modern evangelical churches for me feel too try hard and showy. I grew up in Assemblies of God Pentecostals and our "old fashioned hymns" was Caribbean dance hall music but slower and they referenced psalms

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@user-ne1ct2ev5z That just makes me second guess the resurrection to be honest.

[@CamGaylorMusic]

@@user-ne1ct2ev5z The Marian dogmas are unscriptural and a bit ridiculous and I cannot accept them in good faith.

[@dokidelta1175]

I agree with you. I think if I could cut out the falsehoods, I would be most comfortable in a Roman Catholic Church, and yet unfortunately I'm essentially forbidden from partaknig in the fullness of worship there (communion) because I can't contend with what their authorities have mandated

[@alishavogel7926]

With due respect, try and find a Messianic congregation and visit. It's not some judiazing church or denomination, but a congregation of trying to get back to what the Acts Church would have been like, both Jew and Gentile, worshiping the Jewish Savior in the Jewish tradition. Just a thought and good luck!

[@Silverhailo21]

Daily reminder that God has not given us a spirit of fear but of power and love and a sound mind.

[@jvlp2046]

St. Paul said, "DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN." (1 Corinthians 4:6)... Amen.

[@philipmarchalquizar7741]

Yeah.. Throw 7 books in the bible.

[@jvlp2046]

@@philipmarchalquizar7741 Any written letters, scrolls, documents, or individual manuscripts "AFTER" the Written Gospel of John and the Revelation had finally completed around 110 A.D. were NOT considered by the early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor as Inspired by the Holy Spirit... for example, the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Barnabas, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate, Letters of Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Agustine, etc... The written Revelation of God to Apostle John was the LAST of God's WORD (Inspired Holy Scripture of N.T.) given to Mankind... Logically, God will not give HIS revelation if HE wants to add more... saving the BEST Prophecies for LAST (God's final WORD was the Revelation)... God said, "Anyone who ADD or SUBTRACT (take away) from the WORD of God including HIS Prophesies written in the scrolls thereof, God will add plagues to them, and erase/remove their names from the Tree of Life... (ref. Rev. 22:18)... This was the SEALED statement of God's WORD. There were NO more PERSONAL REVELATIONS after the Inspire Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were finally written and completed in individual scrolls (not compiled yet as a Book/Bible) and distributed in the 7 Churches in Asia Minor around 110 A.D. In conclusion, "AFTER" the Revelation by God to Apostle John was finally written in Greek and distributed in the Early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.... The written NEW COVENANT of God through Christ Jesus was finally completed and sealed... The Written WORD of God is "ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN ENOUGH." ... All Scripture is God's breathed and useful for Teaching, Correcting, Reproofing, Instructing, and Training in Righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... Facts and Truth, Biblically and Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@alwilson3204]

They must of missed those verses...

[@philipmarchalquizar7741]

@@jvlp2046 yeah.. removed 7 books. lol

[@MossW268]

@@philipmarchalquizar7741 The Apocrypha has been disputed since early Christianity

[@Presbapterian]

Ready for this good food for thought 😊😊😊

[@rprestarri]

Amen. I’m glad you laid the hammer down when you needed to brother. Keep up the fight for reform. May the Lord bless you. And, as a new father myself, go enjoy your family :) Thanks for your work.

[@alwilson3204]

The New Testament clearly instructs believers that there is a time and place for rebuking those in error.

[@rprestarri]

@@alwilson3204 I agree

[@capturedbyannamarie]

Excellent video

[@SneŽaNa-ch]

Is the full video on bekett cooks channel? Those are very important information I have tried to find for years.

[@TruthUnites]

yes, see video description for link

[@brooklynbarber8946]

The issue with Mary being sinless is that it would defeat the purpose of Jesus conquering sin. The divine nature from the Holy Spirit's overshadowing was sinless, but Mary herself had to be sinful in nature, so that Jesus could take on that nature and conquer it, to be deemed as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

[@robertlotzer7627]

One of the serious problems to notice right off the bat is to listen to any RC talk constantly about Mary. It’s like it comes up in every conversation. And then absolute lack of any such language on the lips of the apostles. The difference is striking.

[@JoAnnFuir]

As a Catholic Christian, I don't hear other Catholics constantly talking about Mary. Be careful not to make false assumptions about Catholics.

[@ablarod948]

​@@JoAnnFuiras a Catholic I must admit this comment is true. To Catholics Mary is as important as the Holy Trinity. Some Catholics even call her the co-redeemer. That's a serious problem.

[@IAmisMaster]

St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 21 on John says Marry sinned at the wedding Canaan and Jesus corrected her.

[@MrKingishere1]

Whenever you show them church fathers that clearly disagreed with them, they just say well they agreed with me on this part, and will change the subject and act like we cannot use the church fathers to support ourselves. That’s what I’ve noticed, been talking with many Roman Catholics.

[@malcolmlayton2050]

Sam Shamoun recently posted a video called 'When protestants argue like heretics and athiests' ... I look forward to one called 'When Roman Catholics argue like muslims' ...

[@IAmisMaster]

@@MrKingishere1 True. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do the same. It’s best not to be a slave to any tradition and be honest about what they said and if it is harmonious with Scrioture. I’m an ex-Protestant and mere Christian, with no intention of jumping to a different but equally erroneous and ahistorical faith like RC or EO.

[@IAmisMaster]

@CatholicTalks I reject sola fide with my whole heart. Depends what you mean “sola scriptura.” If all one means by it is Scripture has higher authority than one or any number of bishops, then sure. Most ante-nicene Christians would be “sola scriptura.”

[@marlam8625]

Did you know it’s your Protestant tradition to change the word “tradition” to “teaching” and relegate it to a footnote only when it doesn’t fit your narrative? See NIV 2Thes 2:15 and 3:6.

[@HillbillyBlack]

Does it not seem odd that the current established 4 Marion dogmas are listed in The Protoevangelium of James and Pseudo-Matthew which is rejected by the Roman Catholic church?

[@tookie36]

As odd as all the other Christian doctrinal varieties.

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@tookie36 not really. Protestant hold firm primarily to the original Church Deposit, which was absent of medieval accretions such as veneration of saints, purgatory and indulgences which violate Deuteronomy 4:2. - We didn’t add or change anything. We removed developed extra-biblical nonsense to restore the church as it was when it started. There are hardly 30,000; Adventists, Anabaptists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Baptists, Calvinist/Reformed,[h] Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, and Quakers. Nondenominational, charismatic and independent. And really only a hand-full of these adhere to Luther and Calvin original intentions. The current true reformed church adheres to true apostolic succession based on its original definition, which is the passing down of the gospel and teachings of the apostles from Scripture. If we are talking Protestants who engage in rock concerts, you’re going to find almost 100% agreement with a true reformed Protestant on that particular topic. We reformers would never consider them anything related to reformation theology other than just tickled the ear preaching. All TRUE reformed churches adhere to the infallibility of scripture as did the early patristic Fathers. - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) But thankfully, the number of protestants is rivaling that of Roman Catholics in that we are quickly catching up globally at about 800 million. Together that gives us almost 2 billion church figure which is astounding given the global population of 9 billion. But technically, the church is invisible in that its core definition are those who hold faith in Christ alone. Christ said there is only one faith and one church and that is true. But that one faith is saving faith not a declared declarative faith as in some sort of title. The faith is saving faith and the church is those who possess saving faith and these people exist in many churches.

[@geoffjs]

@@HillbillyBlackWhat is that One Church named?

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@geoffjs Ecclesia. It means one body unified. A gathering. You see scripture never calls the church "catholic". this is a later developed title which means universal. not Roman.

[@DrEnuelHernandez]

Brother Gavin, I’ll be in contact with you to possibly have a colab in my channel for the Spanish speaking community next week. I’ll write to you with a group of questions. Blessings 🙏

[@Apriluser]

As my husband and I have journeyed into the Anglican (ACNA) church, our appreciation of the role of Mary has grown. However, we would certainly only subscribe to Theotokos and nothing beyond that.

[@Tiredhike]

Same here, I grew in appreciation for the blessed Mother when I journeyed into the Lutheran church. A lot of overlap with Anglicans. I visit my brothers ACNA church (Church of the Redeemer) a few times a year.

[@N1IA-4]

You'd be wrong about that.

[@Tiredhike]

@@N1IA-4 great comment, very thoughtful and well constructed. 👏

[@boblob2003]

Catholics also have the dogma that Mary was a perpetual virgin, even though Matthew 1:25 clearly states that Joseph did indeed have marital relations after Jesus was born.

[@geoffjs]

The key word, until, does not confirm that they had relations after the birth of Jesus

[@geordiewishart1683]

Why else use the word until? The text could just have said that he never knew her / had relations with her.

[@geoffjs]

@@geordiewishart1683don’t get caught up in the semantics. My mother never smoked until she died!

[@ClipPerry]

​@@geoffjs so gimme other context

[@StandupGuy55]

​@geoffjs God never commands Mary or Joseph to refrain from relations either.

[@karol9205]

good topic to tal about. i think video about bodly asumption and immaculate conception with fathers' quotes, similar as you did with icons, would be very helpfull

[@TruthUnites]

thanks! I have a lengthy video on the assumption. will consider doing one on the immaculate conception

[@jesuscorona3562]

Love to hear you're working on that confidence level pastor. Great vid, i wish us Lutherans do more of this kinda content.

[@AnthonyMichaelGarcia]

So good. Found the same thing in my own journey peering into Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I came away thinking, they're really shooting themselves in the foot here, only contriving more and more dogmos over millenia at the exclusion of anyone who is more than willing to follow and trust in Jesus for their salvation, but like myself simply cannot sanction or participate in the hyper veneration of Mary or the practice of prayer to the saints. I came pretty close to becoming orthodox but these beliefs as well as the uncertainty in their model of salvation were the key arguments that stood as immovable obstacles to that end. I am now convinced these later traditions are an invention of the enemy who seeks to divide the body of Christ.

[@Tiredhike]

Great interview. Gavin, you are a machine. Keep up the good work.

[@taylorbarrett384]

Gavin, you mentioned that there were several lists of people assumed into Heaven that were written in the Church prior to the 5th century. Can you cite the examples of these?

[@TruthUnites]

hey Taylor, they are listed in the chapter on Mary in my forthcoming book. Its several pages so I don't really think they would do well in a KZbin comment. sorry to keep you in suspense!

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@TruthUnites do you recall the author's names?

[@psylegio]

I have to admit that I did not know that the doctrine of the immaculate conception was going this far, so thank you so much for helping me learn. This doctrine almost make it sound like virgin births are a mutation that just happen to run in their family, rather than being a God unique one off occurrence.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I used to think the Immaculate Conception had to do w/ Jesus being born sinless and perfect. Then I found out that Mary is supposed to be sinless and perfect too. That was shocking. I see no biblical proof of that whatsoever.

[@psylegio]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 that is precisely what I have thought for years, never thinking it could mean more than that!

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@psylegio I don't see why it needs to mean more than that either? Jesus' virgin birth, his divine nature, being born of God and of a woman in order to be the ultimate redeemer, mediator and savior for our sins is the heart of the gospel. The rest is just gravy.

[@garyr.8116]

@@psylegio Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!

[@garyr.8116]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!

[@22GBR]

I wondered if you had any thoughts on why the Marian dogmas came to be. Meaning what is the value added or intent of creating, adopting and following these beliefs by Catholics? Where does it advance them in any way? In summary, why have it? Thank you.

[@alishavogel7926]

I personally believe it was due to pagan influences and a decrease in knowledge of Jewish instruction of the law and morals. Our faith started in the Synagogues. What do you get when you have an entire culture that is infused with gods and goddesses, lacks correctional knowledge because it scorns its roots, and it is lured by power of state? Many of the things I have an issue with in Catholicism I firmly believe it came from pagan influences. Perpetual virgin due to being a consecrated temple virgin --> this seems to be influenced by the temple Diana and its temple virgins. Patron saints--> seems to be influenced by the idea of gods and goddesses for every need. Depicting Mary as a queen of heaven --> influence of the goddess of Ishtar in Mesopotamia. That's just my opinion.

[@JoAnnFuir]

Without Mary there would be no Jesus. Without Jesus there would be no Christians. Something to ponder. We should all be grateful to Mary for agreeing to be the Mother of the Messiah. She deserves our respect and love. ❤

[@ablarod948]

​@@JoAnnFuirCatholics have gone beyond respect and love. It's closer to worship at this point.

[@jeremymead8546]

​@@JoAnnFuirI will agree to the respect and even honor her willingness to humbly cooperate with God. But the first half of you comment, no, are you seriously suggesting God could not have carried out his plan of salvation without Mary, or without somehow first making Mary something more than human. And how was Christ tempted in every way as we are if his mother was nothing like ours, without original or personal sin, without living normally with her husband ( that in itself would be sin ). This is unnecessary fantasy which actually denies Jesus experience of being fully human.

[@calson814]

I would recommend everyone to read Tim Staples book "Behold Your Mother".

[@Wgaither1]

Why is that?

[@duckymomo7935]

Yea the Catholic Church has deviated away from Christ if their entire talking piece is the mother and not Christ

[@SaltyApologist]

Why would I read a book from a Roman apologist when there is zero historical and biblical evidence for the Marian dogmas? And Rome anathematizes anyone who refuses to believe something that shows up in gnostic writings centuries after Christ? Tim Staples does a good job twisting history and scripture to fit Rome’s narrative. They also try and use Aristotelian philosophy to imply things that scripture and history just denies. Mary was a blessed woman, a wonderful woman who served God in an amazing way. But she was a creature, nothing more.

[@caleb.lindsay]

The North Star of historical hermeneutics is fixed once an infallible conclusion is declared. The "evidence" is required to march towards that conclusion because it is a required entailment that history must affirm it.

[@Sundayschoolnetwork]

Just watched your interview with Beckett. Love what you're doing!

[@bethsaari6209]

Me too!

[@samueljennings4809]

I personally think that the Jesus’ brothers=cousins doctrine is at least plausible based on Scripture and church writings (I’m Protestant but I don’t have any issues with this idea, nor does it conflict with the principles of Protestantism) but the other Marian doctrines are something that I am considerably skeptics of, especially the Immaculate Conception.

[@tategarrett3042]

I think I'd agree that the cousin relationship idea is plausible though really the only reason you would need to lean into it at all is if you're committed to the other dogmas.

[@ottovonbaden6353]

I used to be staunchly opposed to this idea, but after reading the Protovangelion of James, I can see that it could have been the case. Not saying it definitely was, but it made me go from "No, Mary did not remain a virgin," to "Maybe she did, maybe she didn't."

[@MichaelPetek]

The Immaculate Conception is indicated by the parallel use of eulogemene/eulogemenos (distinction of gender only), in "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." This is the Holy Spirit's expression of the Father's good pleasure in Mary and in Jesus. It is reinforced by "kecharitioene" (full of grace), which has the feminine passive suffix of charitoo- with the prefix ke- indicating an action completed in the past with effects in the present.

[@malcolmlayton2050]

Why do we need to believe Mary remained a virgin ... sex within marriage is not a sin ... and the plain reading that Joseph did not 'know' her until after the birth of Christ ... meaning the marriage was not consummated until after that event ... and the references to Christ's brothers and sisters then become simply understood ... and let's not forget Jesus' words that anybody who does the Father's will is His 'mother, brothers and sisters' ... which seems to be Jesus distancing Himself from His biological family rather than say Mary is someone to be elevated above the rest of humanity ...

[@tategarrett3042]

@@MichaelPetek That seems like a very tenuous and very indirect connection to try to build a damning doctrine off of. Besides, Jesus uses the exact same phrase for woman to refer to people he isn't even related to.

[@gardengirlmary]

Really appreciate the review of literature! I feel inspired to read the church fathers now.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

I was just discussing this topic.

[@lilafeldman8630]

I saw the Church of the Dormition of Mary when I visited Jerusalem. I didn't go in, but I saw it from the ramparts. Beautiful place, but based on something that probably didn't happen.

[@thomasmcgraw8778]

Mad respect to gavin for being the first protestant to take great care in accurately represent us without demonization. Obviously I disagree for a myriad of reasons and he cant make a Jimmy akins level defense to pick apart in a 13 minute video but I cant exactly hold that against him. All in all, well done

[@PhillipMelanchthon]

The label Theotokos is part of a theological trajectory with a questionable endpoint. 1. Theotokos - God bearer. Mary bore/gave birth to Jesus. 2. Mother of God. While Mary gave birth to the incarnate Son of the Trinity, she is now subtly credited with being the originator of all the Godhead. 3. Regina Caeli. Mary, Queen of Heaven. Next Mary is credited with assuming authority over Heaven. 4. Our Lady of Perpetual Help. In her privileged role in Heaven, Mary is able to listen to prayers and provide help. This means she is able to answer prayers; ascribing to her the qualities of the Trinity. 5. Co-Redemptrix. Because she bore Jesus, she had an important role in the salvation of Mankind, possibly even a co-equal role.

[@DanielApologetics]

🍿🍿🍿

[@toddgruber5729]

I say this with charity, Gavin is a super smart dude. No doubt. That said why would anyone take his explanations about this topic as the final answer? I’m seeing folks say they are more confident in their Protestantism after watching this, but why not listen to the BEST Catholic argument FOR the Marian dogmas, THEN decide? Tim Staples does a good job explaining the Biblical and historical reasons for the Marian dogmas in videos and in his book Behold your Mother. I’m just saying, look for the really good apologetics from a Catholic, listen to Gavin as well, sure, then make a call. Just some advice FWIW. ✌🏻

[@toddthacker8258]

All of the Catholic arguments for the Marian Dogmas--but especially the assumption--seem like they were made by people who started with their desired conclusion rather than from people seeking the truth.

[@michellebryan8148]

@@toddthacker8258 Mary produced that TRUTH, that WAY and that source of everlasting LIFE. So, where that TRUTH is, so is Mary also. If Enoch and Elijah who were God's Creations/Prophets taken to heaven and never S see or experience death, what made you thin that the very GOD who made that bodily ascension possible could not make his own MOTHER ascend the way he made them to ascend?

[@toddthacker8258]

@@michellebryan8148 God certainly could have. There's just no evidence that He did. And there is certainly nothing in Scripture to make us think that Mary should get so much attention that would otherwise be focused on God Himself.

[@toddgruber5729]

@@toddthacker8258 I’d just suggest, take a read of Behold your Mother and see if you would make the same statement. No one thing is probably going to be a magic pill, but it might be worth checking out. I know many find that Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant is compelling and that’s straight biblical. ✌🏻

[@Christiancatholic7]

Because most of these people are ignorant and intellectually dishonest fundamentalists

[@Mark-cd2wf]

“There are many areas of agreement I have with Roman Catholics. They believe the Bible is the Word of God, so do I. They believe in the Trinity, so do I. They believe In Christ’s substitutionary death on the Cross, so do I. They believe in His resurrection, so do I. They believe He is the only way to be saved, so do I. _”It’s the things that were added later that I disagree with.”_ Dr. Billy Graham, arguably the greatest evangelist since the Apostle Paul (emphasis added)

[@OrangeMonkey2112]

Cracks me up. She was a sinner like the rest of us. She was not a virgin, except for her first birth. After that she was no longer a virgin. Roman Catholic paganism

[@chriskremnitzer2659]

I’m not Catholic, but I do think it could be possible that Mary was assumed since Elijah and Enoch were taken into heaven bodily just for being closely devoted followers to God. Mary being the mother of God, having a virgin birth and raising Jesus from a young age means she definitely had some sort of special role. I don’t think people should be anathematized for speculation but this and the idea of her being the ark of the covenant is kind of convincing of something more than her just being a normal person.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Mary was definitely blessed among women, and scriptures do show that even her cousin Elizabeth knew this by the power of the Holy Spirit when they were both w/ child, so that's a remarkable scriptural proof. I've never been convinced of the ark of the covenant spiritual type. I think that's a new one that has cropped up w/ Catholic apologists like Trent Horn, that were once protestant, and are grasping to convince the sola scriptura camp of Christians. I might be wrong on that last part. If the ark type is historical w/ Catholics, I'd stand corrected.

[@caseycardenas1668]

​@@saintejeannedarc9460the ark type goes back to the church fathers. Hippolytus, Athanasius, and Proclus just to name a few off the top of my head.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@caseycardenas1668 Ok, then I stand corrected on that, thank you. I think it seems to be newer, because ex protestant Catholics use it so liberally now as tool to reach biblically based Christians. That would seem to be a more fair and correct assessment then.

[@caseycardenas1668]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Gavin himself has stated in prior videos that he believes that Mary is the Ark. I would say your assessment is fair but it also needs to be realized that the contemporary use of Mary as the Ark is prominent because it was always a part of the apostolic faith and even present in early protestantism. It's a response to American Restorationist Movements that have moved away from this view of Mary, it was present in one form or another in 16th century magisterial protestantism.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@caseycardenas1668 Can you think of a video where Gavin agrees w/ that Mary is the ark? I thought I remembered that he still thinks this type is a stretch, but doesn't need to dismiss it outright. I'm pretty sure it was Gavin, because most protestant apologists aren't that gracious and flexible on it, and ones like James White will just toss it all w/out even smaller concessions. I like James White though. He's a bulldog, but he's our bulldog, lol.

[@JamesH-i9p]

Can any RC answer that if Mary is so important to salvation then why is she only mentioned twice in the last 22 books of the NT,once indirectly in Romans talking about lineage and once in Galatians when she was just mentioned as Jesus mother? The woman in Revelation 12 is very clearly Israel.

[@geoffjs]

Jesus is our salvation, but Mary played a vital role. No Mary, no Jesus. She leads us, like a good mother, to her son

[@geordiewishart1683]

Satan played an important role. No fall of man, no redemption of man. Judas played an important role. No betrayal, then no arrest and trial. Joseph's parents played an important role. No Joseph, then no spouse to support Mary and her child. Pilate played an important role. No conviction, then no execution. The tree played an important role. No tree, no crucifixion.

[@babylonsfall7]

Is it any wonder that this idea came out of Ephesus? “And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.” When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭26‬-‭28‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Seems to me that the Marian Dogmas were a great replacement for losing Artemis to Jesus and it would make perfect sense that they would arise from this false female deity being such an icon there in Ephesus.

[@tonywallens217]

Ephesus decided the Theotokos, “God Bearer”. Not the assumption, immaculate conception etc. If you don’t believe that Mary have birth to God and that thereby she was the mother of God then you side with the Nestorian Heresy which splits Christ into two people effectively. That really was the point of Ephesus. Also the presider over the council was Cyril of Alexandria who was not from Ephesus. The term “Theotokos” also first comes from Origen of Alexandria. The idea that Ephesus is the origin of the doctrine or any other such Marian dogmas isn’t founded on much other than associations it seems. The term itself comes from Egypt

[@babylonsfall7]

@@tonywallens2173:40 he talks about that council at Ephesus sort of creating the big stir about Mary, and since it was at Ephesus, I am yes, assuming a little bit that the Artemis part of it could’ve also played a role which we see in Acts 19. Many people at the council from Ephesus would have taken that part about Mary and could have run with it since they would have grown up being taught Artemis from the ground up… so it’s just a plausible correlation to the later fantasies about Mary such as almost Deity-like status (sinless, etc).

[@BrohamMC]

So how do you explain the Marian Apparitions around the world? Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. There is mounds of evidence of her work on behalf of her Son in our world, how do you explain this away?

[@joekey8464]

They refuse believe those.

[@HearGodsWord]

They don't need to believe in rumours and man-made superstitions. Save that for the RCC

[@BrohamMC]

@@HearGodsWord perfect so the Atheists are right then. Christ was never resurrected because that's just man made superstition. There's clearly no evidence whatsoever of either Christ or Mary acting in our world, so who would believe that sort of thing anyway, right?

[@shema9172]

@@BrohamMCDemons

[@BrohamMC]

@@shema9172 you shall know them by their fruits. These events have brought more to faith in Jesus, not less. If they were truly demonic supernatural events it would have been obvious. So you either believe that Satan has the power to move the sun about the sky like it's a soccer ball, or you believe everyone at Fatima had a mass hallucination. Again, you sound like an atheist who argues that the apostles were either sincerely mistaken, or hallucinated.

[@zachdavis7536]

I really appreciate your videos because they make me think as a Catholic. I grew up Protestant and I did not have a good catechesis. I find the authority of the Catholic Church to be very comforting. Jesus gave us a Church and the Church has the authority to decide what is a dogma. I loved how you talked about Theotokos and how we can agree on that point as protestants and Catholics.

[@philagon]

Yes, except that the church Jesus gave us isn't the Roman Catholic church.

[@zachdavis7536]

@@philagon as protestants and Catholics, we agree to disagree on this point. We are brethren and we are both on the path to heaven.

[@philagon]

@@zachdavis7536 Nice sentiment, but the Catholic church anathematizes those who disagree with her claim of authority.

[@zachdavis7536]

@@philagon good KZbin channels to watch for clarity on this issue are Trent Horn and Bishop Robert Barron. They were a huge part of my catechesis.

[@JosefFurg1611]

@@zachdavis7536 Protestants and Catholics don't believe the same gospel at all. Just on this video you have the reference to a papal bull that anathemises all those who don't believe in the assumption of Mary. Virtually all Protestants reject the assumption of Mary. Therefore, it cannot be said that we are brothers and all on the same path to heaven. Jesus said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47 I don't see anything about the assumption on Mary there, or baptism, or confession. Even Peter preached this: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43

[@vivekapihl5179]

Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to Jesus and took care of him with Joseph and the family. Mary was at the foot of the cross and among those who stayed in the Upper Room at the Pentecost. That is sufficient to know.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

It is interesting that the early Church honored the relics of the martyrs but there is no record of the veneration of Mary's relics. This is evidence that the early Church believed Mary was indeed assumed into heaven. Since everyone believed it and was not atacked it was not actively defended.

[@joeoleary9010]

If it's true the "early church" believed Mary was assumed into heaven, then why did the 5th century Pope Gelasius condemn the earliest books that speak of the Assumption, and declare them heretical? Does one find the teaching of Mary's Assumption in the New Testament? No. What about in the writings of the Church Fathers previous to Gelasius? No. What about in the authentic piety of decreed Roman Catholic festivals and observances? No.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

@@joeoleary9010 things are more complex than you suggest. Dig deeper into the condemnations attributed to Pope Gelasius I.

[@joeoleary9010]

@@jonatasmachado7217 If you know what these things are, tell us. I note that a number of Catholics here keep alluding that Gavin can't be right on this topic. Yet they never spell out why.

[@truthreasoncampaign]

Did I just see Becket cook drink out of a beaker at the end of the video?....heheheheh.. Great video Dr Ortlund

[@sjappiyah4071]

Solid breakdown again Dr.Ortlund

[@joelapp]

It doesn’t matter if they are “historically valid” it matters only if they are Biblically valid. And they aren’t.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

I'm having a thought on the Immaculate Conception of Mary. If Anna (Mary's mother) was herself a virgin when she conceived Mary, why was Mary shocked that she herself will conceive? "'How can this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?' The angel answered her, 'The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.'" (Luke 1:34-37) 1.) If Anna conceived Mary as a virgin, why was Mary confused how she could herself conceive as a virgin? 2.) If the reason the angel gave for telling Mary her virgin conception was "so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God", then wouldn't that mean Mary should be called the Daughter of God? 3.) The evidence the angel used to show Mary that God was able was her cousin Elizabeth being pregnant past child-bearing years, but if Mary's own mother conceived her as a virgin, then why wouldn't the angel have used that as reference instead?

[@joeoleary9010]

There's nothing in even the most apocryphal Catholic tradition about Anna being a virgin when she had Mary.

[@Ostariophysi]

That isn't what the Immaculate Conception means. No one thinks that Mary's mother was a virgin when Mary was conceived. Immaculate Conception means that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of conception.

[@jeremymead8546]

​@@Ostariophysiyou may need to look up the RC traditions concerning Mary's parents since you seem unaware of them.

[@Ostariophysi]

@@jeremymead8546 what are you referring to?

[@jeremymead8546]

Anne, the mother of Mary, first appears in the 2nd-century apocryphal Gospel of James. The author of the gospel borrowed from Greek tales of the childhood of heroes. For Jesus' grandmother the author drew on the more benign biblical story of Hannah-hence Anna-who conceived Samuel in her old age, thus reprising the miraculous birth of Jesus with a merely remarkable one for his mother.[14] Anne and her husband, Joachim, are infertile, but God hears their prayers and Mary is conceived.[15] According to Stephen J. Shoemaker, within the Gospel of James, the conception occurs without sexual intercourse between Anne and Joachim, which fits well with the Gospel of James' persistent emphasis on Mary's sacred purity, but the story does not advance the idea of an immaculate conception.[16] The author of the Gospel of James may have based this account of Mary's conception on that of John the Baptist as recounted in the Gospel of Luke.[

[@the_hortator]

Betteridge's Law of Headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'."

[@MrKingishere1]

The Marian dogmas are not authentic Christian dogmas as the Trinity is, nor are they a small issue, I cannot and will never accept the idea of Mary being sinless. When I was basically a full on Roman Catholic I defended them but now stepping back from the Catholic Church I realized I only believed it because The Catholic Church said I had to. James White uses an phenomenal question that goes “if you gave the Bible to a thousand people and had them read it from genesis to revelation, would at least one person come to the conclusion that Mary was sinless, the queen of heaven, only had one child, remained a virgin her entire life and assumed into heaven ? The look of confusion would be understandable.” The Marian dogmas are heresy.

[@MichaelPetek]

A person who could understand the meaning of the Greek terms eulogemene and kecharitomene could easily conclude that Mary was sinless. A person could find proof that Mary had one child, but no proof that she had any more or that she lost her virginity at any time after the birth of her first. You could find plenty material in the OT to indicate that the Queen of the House of David was the mother of the King, not his wife. You could combine Luke 1:43 with John 20:28 to prove syllogistically that Mary is the Mother of God.

[@MrKingishere1]

@@MichaelPetek Kecharitomene doesn’t work… even Trent acknowledges that the Greek word used for Mary does not in itself show that she is sinless, that word is also used in apocryphal books. Nobody in the early church used the Greek word to show that Mary was sinless, and that word doesn’t show that she is sinless in any shape or form as Horn even acknowledges that and many others. It’s not a good argument and there are countless verses that make it very clear that Jesus Christ was the only man without sin.

[@MichaelPetek]

@@MrKingishere1 Kecharitomene on its own isn't conclusive. It means that Mary was completely transformed by grace in the past, with effects continuing to the present - that meaning is contained in the ke- prefix. The effect is indicated by eulogemene. The -mene suffix is feminine passive singular. The -menos prefix is masculine passive singular and in the NT is used only on two occasions and only of Jesus - as in 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." In "eulogemenoi", the -menoi suffix is the mixed gender plural, and is found in "Come, you who are blessed of my Father." In all these constructions, the root euloge- indicates definitive and irrevocable benediction proper to the Last Judgement. Mary received her final judgement while she was pregnant and in this life.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@MichaelPetek If Mary was really sinless, you wouldn't need to do hoop de loops w/ original language to find vague and inconclusive allusions and hidden inferences. If it was as all important as the RCC makes out, by making it dogma that has to be believed, then the bible would clearly say it. Jesus is said to be sinless and it's laid out many times, in black and white, clearly seen and understood, no matter what language the text is translated into. When God wants us to really know and understand something, he makes it that plain.

[@MrKingishere1]

@@MichaelPetek it doesn’t mean anything special and like I pointed out it’s also used in apocryphal books

[@thegearhouse5337]

This is the main thing keeping me from Orthodoxy and Catholicisn

[@michellebryan8148]

Mary's Dogma is keeping you from being really SAVED? Then, you are a confused Christian.

[@michellebryan8148]

Why confused? Because you can not identify the importance of Jesus ,,,, NEW ARK.

[@michellebryan8148]

Besides, what made you think that believing Mary's Dogma would offend God Or lessen your SAlVATION.In fact, it's the other way around.

[@michellebryan8148]

People who are hesitating of becoming Catholic due to Mary's Dogma is not understanding one thing...... God/Jesus will not be offended just because a person is believing that particular dogma of his chosen WOMAN/NEW ARK who helped/cooperated and participated to bring fulfillment of his Masterplan to bring SALVATION to his sinful creations.It's the other way around... He would be offended if people like Gavin is preaching/leading people away from acknowledging HIS own MOTHER'S important role as his earthly NEW ARK/ABODE and spreading such nonsense, disrespectful teaching esp. when Pastor, like McArthur and others, referring to Mary as PAGAN Goddess. That is blaspheming the very chosen woman who gave FORM to an invisible and formless God.

[@michellebryan8148]

Logging off....

[@despair_ts1823]

This comment section is full of craziness let me tell ya!

[@minagelina]

I wonder if the worship of isis and osiris came into play here. Could the church have used the imagery of isis and osiris to shape their own art to draw in those pagan worshippers into the church? Isis worship lasted into the fourth century, so the timeline is about right

[@FourEyedFrenchman]

To believe in the Marian dogmas is to confess that Mary was not fully human, but something more akin to a demigod, like Achilles or Perseus. It makes sense that such a doctrine would begin to develop when it did, considering the sheer number of Greco-Roman pagan converts that came into the church after Christianity was legalized and became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

[@catkat740]

No, we don’t believe that. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son."

[@IOANNIS-l7r]

IT IS INFINITE JUST INFINITE RIGHT TO VENERATE AND HONORED THE MOTHER OF GOD BECAUSE DOING THAT MEANS THAT JESUS IS TRUE GOD COMING TO MEET HIS CREATURE AND ALL THE CREATION.

[@joycegreer9391]

Their Mary nonsense is crazy!!

[@Adrian-Abu]

Can you do a video on contraception?

[@myselfpoker88]

most catholics aren't catholic in belief they just choose to identify as catholic because of family tradition. I know, i was raised catholic and praise the Lord now I am a saved and sealed Christian. Thank you Jesus for saving me and quickening me

[@MrPeach1]

I am Catholic from the cradle and I agree that alot of people show up because of family tradition. Its not like thr church doesn't try to explain the faith though alot of is just don't want to listen. I teach Sunday school now to 6th graders so I see it first hand every week.

[@N1IA-4]

What most Catholics do is irrelevant to whether Catholicism is true.

[@joycegreer9391]

Then there is hope that some "Catholics" might be saved.

[@joycegreer9391]

Then there is hope that some "Catholics" might be saved.

[@gnomeresearch1666]

Anyone can take a family tradition for granted. As a Catholic convert, I take none of it for granted. Jesus be praised.

[@Hamann9631]

The assumption is the most likely of things which only Roman Catholics say about about Mary.

[@joyhenry-dp8nd]

Hi, Beckett. You are a brother in Christ. As a Catholic, I hope you actually get a Catholic to speak on the Catholic dogmas. I like Gavin Outland but he is not accurate in things he says and he is not Catholic. Isn’t it better (for anything) to learn something from its strengths rather than from an opposing view of them? (Even if for no other reason than to argue effectively against the ?) I hope you can have someone like brant Pitre, Trent horn or scott hahn on to give an alternative opinion. 💙

[@Highproclass]

What’s the evidence for talking a donkey? A few verses. Jonah being swallowed? A few verses. Mary assumed? Revelation 12. I’m not pro assumption - all I’m saying is that for many (Protestant Scholars included) Revelation 12 is Mary.

[@Bhope07]

Mary worship and Hail Mary is sin, it’s terrible that the enemy has deceived so many to do this

[@michellebryan8148]

See this post, Gabin?Jesus will hold YOU and the other PPastors responsible for their soul. See how your spiritual toxicity is spreading like fire?

[@Bhope07]

@@michellebryan8148 oh it’s spreading like fire alright, burning out the sin of the land

[@michellebryan8148]

@@Bhope07 Have you seen comments in other videos expressing their own SAVED ALREADY belief saying..... " I can do whatever i want and live however i want to live because Jesus died for my sins" That kind of shallow response is the result of preaching that False FAITH ALONISM doctrine that led them to that false belief and false Pastor like Gabin will be responsible for their deceived and lost souls..

[@michellebryan8148]

@@Bhope07 And yes, their spiritual toxic teaching are spreading like fire.

[@toddthacker8258]

@@michellebryan8148 Goodness Michelle, read the Gospels. Jesus said "no man shall come to the Father except by me," not "except by me and my mom." Protestants may be wrong about Mary but it's not a salvivfic issue.

[@DashRiprock-m3b]

So, if one wants to impune Mary as the "mother of God", this would mean the modalists were right. Catholics like to play games with words. Man can give her great credit as the girl God chose to bear His Only Begotten Son, but to go beyond that is simple heresy. I'm speaking as an ex-RC who gave his life to the real Christ 40+ years ago and has studied RCC extra-biblical dogmas since.

[@wjtruax]

(A Catholic Response) Two items: 1. Theotokos. Your take was very good - but not deep enough. The issue at Ephesus was about whether to refer to the Blessed Mother as "Theotokos" (God-bearer) or "Christotokos" (Christ-bearer). The Nestorians were OK with "Christotokos" because they held (among other heresies) that Jesus became divine after becoming human - maybe even as late as his baptism. Calling Mary "Theotokos" not only reinforced Jesus' divinity, but emphasized that he was fully God and fully human from the moment of conception. There was never a moment when the man Jesus was separate from the Second Person of the Trinity. 2. Overall, may I suggest that you’re looking at Catholicism through a microscope when it would be more efficient, effective, and (IMHO) reasonable to do so through a telescope. From a documentary perspective, you might be correct in saying that there is scant evidence for and, thus, “no real reason to believe in the Marian dogmas of the bodily assumption and the immaculate conception.” But those, or any individual, Catholic doctrines or dogmas are of secondary importance and are completely taken care of when the primary issue - Church authority - is settled. If the Church truly has divine authority to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18), and that authority is perpetual, then the only reason one needs to believe in the Marian dogmas, or any other Catholic doctrine/dogma, is that the authoritative Church says so. If the Church doesn’t have any of those Christ-given authorities, then everything it says is up for grabs. Moreover, since the Church claims those authorities, if it really doesn’t have those divine authorities, then it is, at best, a dangerous distraction from true faith, and more likely a demonic obstacle to man’s union with Christ. So, if you come to a conclusion on the Church’s authority claims, the (relatively) minor issues of individual doctrines and dogmas fall into place rather easily.

[@goyonman9655]

Does the EO church approve of these??

[@goyonman9655]

Does the EO church approve of these??

[@toddthacker8258]

Gavin doesn't believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church either, William, so I don't think you are moving the needle much.

[@wjtruax]

@@toddthacker8258 but that's my whole point. Instead of nit-picking individual Catholic doctrines, demonstrating the lack of divine authority of the Catholic Church would bring the entire structure down. However, the problem with attacking the authority of the Catholic Church is trying to keep the authority of Scripture in the process. Gavin's take on how we got the Canon, from the (admittedly) little that I have heard, is that the Canon developed organically and was just accepted over time by Christians as Holy Writ. The documentary evidence for Church councils debating and making declarations on the subject really, really make that idea hard to swallow. As I started to investigate Orthodox and Catholic teaching (as a Reformed Calvinist Presbyterian), I took the same tack. I targeted one specific doctrine after another that I believed was heretical and/or extra-biblical and, thus, not acceptable. As I was not getting the results I wanted - invalidation of Catholic teaching - I decided to go for the jugular - Church authority. When that didn't go the way I wanted either, I had to become Catholic. It wasn't easy. Socially and family-wise, it would have been a lot easier for me to stay Protestant, but that would have been direct disobedience to the Holy Spirit's leading. I'm still open - if anyone can demonstrate that the Catholic Church is NOT Christ's authoritative representative on earth, then I'll revert to being a devout Protestant.

[@gregorylatta8159]

Idolatry is rampant.

[@srich7503]

We Catholics agree!!!👍🏻

[@Ericviking2019]

I think you need a Catholic theologian on here to discuss our beliefs about Mary, 🙂.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Why? Are you unable to articulate or understand your own beliefs?

[@geoffjs]

@@geordiewishart1683because we, as lay Catholics, are not doing a good job of convincing skeptical,Protestants! If Protestants knew what riches they’re missing by turning their collective back on Mary, they would drop their reservations - Through Mary to Jesus which I have experienced. Catholicism enjoys the three legged stable stool of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium as well as the other three legged stool of Marian Devotion, Real Presence of the Eucharist & the Holy Spirit. Three legs is a very important concept for engineering, so as to ensure stability! The Trinity is obviously three legged as is Mary ie the New Eve, New Ark & New Queen

[@ash5033938337]

Speaking on Theotokos, "God-Bearer, It simply is a reference to the incarnation, really, it just means that Jesus is God." This is wrong, because Theotokos is a title, not one of God's, but of Mary's. It is to hold in honor God's choice of her as the one to bear Jesus. From Wikipedia: "Theotokos is an adjectival compound of two Greek words Θεός "God" and τόκος "childbirth, parturition; offspring". A close paraphrase would be "[she] whose offspring is God" or "[she] who gave birth to one who was God"."

[@MrPeach1]

We know the burial places of John, Peter, and Paul. Where is Marys remains? Certainly John would have remember where he planted Jesus Mom...

[@MrPeach1]

Another thought is as these 4th century claims are popping up where is the push back it was only 300 years earlier. Thats like if I said George Washington was assumed into heaven. Clearly there would be people that would correct me because they would know where the remains are. Dr Gavin should go in search of the body since he is so sure its make believe. Does he think the early church purposely hid her body? We can't say the early church didn't recognize the value in the mother of the Lord since Luke interviewed her for his gospel clearly the early church recognized her part in the story. Why would they not mark her grave?

[@geordiewishart1683]

Strange that you think you know where Peter is buried. Considering there is no proof he was ever in Rome

[@toddvoss52]

I suggest reading Matthew Levering's book on the Assumption.

[@TruthUnites]

read it, love Matthew

[@MegaVincenzo13]

There was no reference to the death of Mary either or her funeral. Why are prods upset about the assumption of Mary and not of Elijah or Enoch?

[@MegaVincenzo13]

God wills that Mary is respected and honoured. There are many protestants who cannot preach on their own faith, but have to point fingers at the Church founded by God. Mary has revealed prophecies that are remarkably accurate. You are still just a grasshopper. You say Sola Scriptura and then quote some obscure guys who you say were church fathers, but were not. You are a great example of why people need the Church (Catholic) to interpret things.

[@HearGodsWord]

Your comparison of Elijah to Mary highlighted your false complaint

[@toddthacker8258]

Probably: a) because their assumptions are in Scripture, whereas Mary's death is not addressed; and b) the Catholic Church doesn't force me to believe in their assumptions to be saved.

[@mrmcface713]

Because of Occam's razor

[@rlhicks1]

@@MegaVincenzo13 "Mary has revealed prophecies...' no, no she doesn't.

[@joshuam.1240]

Thank you for your videos. I am a Baptist Protestant curious about protestants using the rosary for prayer. Can you please make a video about that from a Protestant perspective? Should Protestants use it? Which sources do you recommend for a unique understanding of the rosary from the Protestant perspective? Thank you.

[@joeoleary9010]

I was raised Catholic. The broad idea of the rosary is that Mary is the perfect disciple of Jesus. That is, in the NT she is depicted as the most faithful and obedient follower of Jesus. I suppose Protestants could approach the rosary's 50 Ave Marias (Hail Mary prayers) in that light, without the added theology of Mary as an intercessor.

[@Tiredhike]

I’m Lutheran and use a Rosary daily. It’s not uncommon among Anglicans and Lutherans. I use it to pray through Psalms, the Lord’s Prayer, other prayers , etc….Jordan Cooper has a KZbin video on it. I think it’s a great devotional tool. I also have some icons, candles, and a table crucifix in my home prayer space.

[@joshuam.1240]

@@joeoleary9010 Thank you very much for your viewpoint! Blessings and Happy Father’s Day! I know that Protestants and Catholics have different views of Mary so thank you for your insights! 😄

[@joshuam.1240]

@@Tiredhike Happy Father’s Day! I am familiar with Jordan Copper. It is unique to hear of fellow Protestants looking at icons and using the rosary for prayer. Thank you!!

[@PaxMundi118]

Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

[@PaxMundi118]

She is Queen of the Apostles.

[@notavailable4891]

The argument that Mary doesn't appear in lists of those rising to heaven is an argument from ignorance. It is conspicuous, but I can think of several reasons why this might be the case, but without having a positive argument that her exclusion necessarily means it was unheard of it is rhetorically powerful but evidentially somewhat weak.

[@choicemeatrandy6572]

The vast importance that the Roman church assigns to her and the role she plays in salvation, whereas the scarce info found in the NT about her is a massive eyebrow raiser.

[@alishavogel7926]

No, it's an argument from "if you want to damn people to hell for not believing it your evidence needs to be solid." Understand the epistles are as much an apologetic of the faith as it is a manual of it. Why would something so allegedly important to the faith be excluded from its defense? The writers go out of their way to build a defense of the resurrection, salvation, sanctification, of how Jesus is the Messiah, ect, but it woefully absent on the vary thing Catholic doctrine says if you don't you will go to hell??? Sorry, but that's just as fantastical as saying the devil is just a misunderstood good angel.

[@notavailable4891]

@@alishavogel7926 You are equally in trouble if you deny Jesus has two wills or two natures and is of the same substance as the father. I suggest you will find little evidence of those doctrines in the epistles as well. Your argument also applies to a lot of things. I am damned for not accepting a form of sola fide which I would argue has 0 evidence, let alone air tight evidence. Maybe you also mean that that isn't damnable either, but I suggest that unless your faith consists of some kind of mushy vague idea of Jesus and salvation, you are going to come to the point where you believe people are damned for not believing in something which is argued to be based on scant to no evidence.

[@notavailable4891]

@@choicemeatrandy6572 But this standard would apply to many doctrines, not just the Marian doctrines. It is helpful to start thinking about these standards, but j would humbly suggest that something more specific would have to rule out the Marian dogmas or you unnecessarily threaten to toss out other less controversial teachings that many Cheistians share.

[@alishavogel7926]

@@notavailable4891 I would disagree that the epistles have little evidence. They are told from a Jewish standpoint so a firm understanding of what we call the Old Testament would have also been essential. It is especially evident when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for not understanding who he was with all they knew. That tells me that information wasn't hidden nor surprising, the pharisees were just blinded. The Shema and Isaiah 53address the items you listed. And I'm also not disputing that there are 2nd and 3rd tier issues that people mistakenly make into salvic issues. Regarding faith alone, I explain that by (and sorry for the analogy, I haven't come up with something better 😅), that faith and works essentially work like a fertilized egg and a placenta. Faith is the fertilized egg, the new human, but you must have a placenta in order for the human to grow and develop and live. That placenta is works. Faith without works is dead just like a unborn child without a placenta dies. However, the placenta doesn't come before conception, only after. We have salvation by faith alone, but that should produce works of which is the evidence of faith and if you don't produce works, your faith is dead like a baby dies if there is no placenta.

[@brianback6136]

I am sure you would believe this dogma if Jesus himself told you it was true. I also am sure you know the people of the Catholic Church believe that the Holy Spirit was provided to the Church by Jesus to lead it to all truth in matters of Dogma. If the Catholic Church does not have this charism, then who gets to decide these things? Human beings who think they are 'full of Grace' and able to fully grasp (without any Pride) all that is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who gets to decide what books go in the bible? Who gets to provide proper interpretation of the bible? Who gets to decide what the sacraments are? Who gets to decide what happens in the sacraments? Who gets to profess proper understanding of baptism; the real presence; etc.? The "likeminded" believers in Jesus as God and Savior is too vague, impossible to frame, and leaves too many unanswered (important/salvific) questions - which absolutely leads to a relativism that has run wild in our society today. We must turn away from pursuing Jesus with (wise) interpretation and start pursuing Him with a more human relationship. If the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, if He is the Head and we are the body, then relationship with the Church is truly relationship with Him. In this sense the Church is NOT primarily an institution, it is a 'who', it is Christ visible in the world. It is the 'city on the mountain' it is the lamp on the lampstand. Catholics sit at the feet of the Church and by proxy we listen to Him - this is God's desire for us all as he said; "This is my Beloved Son, listen to Him".

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

This apologetic is essentially one massive deflection. It is a way of avoiding fact questions. And it does this by side-stepping the historical reality of what is being discussed in favor of a generic "they must be right in general, therefore they must be right about this." But that logic doesn't move beyond the realm of pious narrative, especially in the presence of competing claims.

[@LittleBrotherSeymour]

For me, your statement raises far more questions than it provides answers. Self identification as a Christian brings one under the authority of the Church, under elders, under judgement and under the command to restore repentant sinners. The question of who is a true Christian, is one for the Lord upon His return, sorting the wheat from the tares. So, we can never and should never take our salvation for granted. How can a person be watchful and careful if anyone should say, it's ok, we've judged you saved already? Yet, over silly nonsense, Rome has pronounced damnation on millions! It's foolish to rely on theological bable, won't the Lord judge the heart? Be true to the light you have and trust Jesus to speak to His bride.

[@brianback6136]

@@lazaruscomeforth7646 no deflection at all. My answer to the questions I pose is the Church - which we beelieve to be Christ. Jesus was not recognized for who He was in His time and that remains true today. What is your answer to the questions I posed? Please be specific. Until one understands where the authority of dogmas come from they will deny the scriptural interpretations laid out by the Church on Marian dogmas.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

We listen to Jesus and are led and guided into all truth through the bible. The bible is said to be the very word of God, Christ is the word of God. Our reading of the NT shows us that we can individually be led by the Holy Spirit. We sit under elders, teachers, pastors, priests to be taught and fed, but our ultimate walk w/ God is a personal one. There were many church bodies laid out in the NT. The were exhorted to be united in Christ. We are all united in Christ.

[@brianback6136]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 who has the proper bible interpretation? Who had the authority to pick the books of the Bible?

[@jacobfischer8385]

I believe the actual logic for why it is treated as dogma was not mentioned here at all. At least give the RCC argument. It pertains to typology, but this again, just isn't even conceptually discussed.

[@michellemcdermott2026]

You should invite on Dr Scott Hahn

[@joeoleary9010]

So many Catholics here, "you should invite this guy, that guy" to save the day with unknown info that legitimizes the Assumption. If you people don't have answers, what make you think Akin, Petrie, or Hahn will have anything worthwhile to contribute?

[@catkat740]

@@joeoleary9010The argument here is that he should have invited a Catholic. Gavin is not an expert in Catholic theology. At all.

[@michellemcdermott2026]

@@joeoleary9010 Not everyone can articulate their beliefs to the degree that a biblical scholar can. Dr Scott Hahn was a Protestant minister and he can explain things more clearly and with the understanding the grave errors of Protestant teachings

[@jvlp2046]

Any written letters, scrolls, documents, or individual manuscripts "AFTER" the Written Gospel of John and the Revelation had finally completed around 110 A.D. were NOT considered by the early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor as Inspired by the Holy Spirit... for example, the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Barnabas, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate, Letters of Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Agustine, etc... The written Revelation of God to Apostle John was the LAST of God's WORD (Inspired Holy Scripture of N.T.) given to Mankind... Logically, God will not give HIS revelation if HE wants to add more... saving the BEST Prophecies for LAST (God's final WORD was the Revelation)... God said, "Anyone who ADD or SUBTRACT (take away) from the WORD of God including HIS Prophesies written in the scrolls thereof, God will add plagues to them, and erase/remove their names from the Tree of Life... (ref. Rev. 22:18)... This was the SEALED statement of God's WORD. There were NO more PERSONAL REVELATIONS after the Inspire Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were finally written and completed in individual scrolls (not compiled yet as a Book/Bible) and distributed in the 7 Churches in Asia Minor around 110 A.D. In conclusion, "AFTER" the Revelation by God to Apostle John was finally written in Greek and distributed in the Early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.... The written NEW COVENANT of God through Christ Jesus was finally completed and sealed... The Written WORD of God is "ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN ENOUGH." ... All Scripture is God's breathed and useful for Teaching, Correcting, Reproofing, Instructing, and Training in Righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... Facts and Truth, Biblically and Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@peterw1177]

Many Catholic Church Dogmas are inspired and confirmed by heaven. “The Holy Spirit is at work. (John 14:26) The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” This is the promise Jesus made to his Church. It started with the Apostles, but it did not end with them. Act. 10: 13 - A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.” But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.” The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.” Act. 15:28 - (Regarding circumcision) “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, …..” THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: Lourdes, France, March 25, 1858, Mary said to Bernadette Soubirous, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Bernadette did not understand what Our Lady was saying to her, and had to repeat the words to herself over and over in her Gascon dialect (“Que soi era Immaculada Concepcion”) all the way back to the parish priest, Fr. Dominique Peyramale. Pope Pius IX had declared the Immaculate Conception a dogma four years earlier. Mary’s statement confirms it. A stream formed where this miracle took place. Many people Catholics and non-Catholics go to Lourdes today to bath in this stream and pray for healing. Many miracles take place there. Interestingly, Bernadette's body is incorruptible to this day. THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Pope Pius XII saw what Catholics call the Miracle of the Sun four times before and after he proclaimed the Dogma of the Assumption. “I have seen the ‘Miracle of the Sun.’ This is the pure truth,” the venerable pope wrote of the events that began just two days prior to his proclamation of the dogma. Years later he described the events in handwritten notes. They were on public display at a Vatican exhibit in November 2008. This is what he wrote regarding what happened, on Oct. 30, 1950 at 4 p.m., during his usual walk in the Vatican Gardens, “I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen.” “The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle,” he recalled, and he could look at it “without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it.” The Holy Father also said the sun “moved outward slightly, either spinning, or moving from left to right and vice versa.” He saw the same miracle again on Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, (which is the day of the definition of the dogma of the Assumption), and then again Nov. 8. He took it as a divine sign endorsing the dogma’s proclamation. (Article in the National Catholic Register, by Joseph Pronechen) God is not dead and the Holy Spirit is always at work. We might not agree with God’s timing, but that does not make His work false.

[@James22426]

Marian Dogmas, Scriptural Defense Mary is the New Eve (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:28 -1:38, Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26, Gal 4:4, Rev 12:1, Rev 12:17) Immaculate Conception: As Eve was created sinless, the New Eve was born unstained by original sin. How can the New Eve be inferior to the old? ASSUMPTION OF MARY: If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, they would have entered heaven body and soul. Since the new creation is the fulfillment of the failure of the old, Jesus, the New Adam, and Mary, the New Eve, obeyed God perfectly. Because of their perfect obedience, Jesus and Mary entered heaven body and soul. CO-REDEMPTRIX: Both Adam and Eve sinned but it was Adam's sin that caused the downfall. Nevetheless, Eve was Co-Transgressor as she played a vital part in man's downfall. In a similar manner, although Jesus' obedience redeemed man, Mary was Co-Redemptrix as she played a vital role in man's redemption. In Luke Ch 1:28-38, God draws a parallel between Eve and Mary. Eve listens to a fallen angel, sins, and tempts Adam who brings the fall of man. Mary listens to an Angel, accepts God's plan, gives birth to Jesus who is the redeemer of man. MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES: Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces because Mary gives birth to Jesus who reconciles man to God so we can receive God's grace. Also through Mary's intercessory prayers, we receive God's grace as displayed at the wedding at Cana when Mary asked Jesus for help and he truned water into wine. It is not Mary's grace, but God's grace that we receive through Mary's intercession. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant (Ex 40:34-35, Lk 1:35), (2 Sam 6:1-11, Lk 1:39), (2 Sam 6:14, Lk 1:43), (2 Sam 6:15, Lk 1:42), (2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:43), ( 2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:56), (2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:39-45), (Ex 16:33-34, Ex 25:16, Num 17:10, Heb 9:4), (Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) Prefigured in Jephthah's daughter (Luke 1:34,38 Judges 11:35-39) EVER VIRGIN: No man could touch the Ark (2 Sam 6:7). Similarly no man could touch Mary the New Ark of the covenant. Mary's viriginy upholds the divinity of Jesus. The Ark's main purpose was to bring the presence of God to his people. Similarly, the New Ark's main purpose was to bring the prescence of Jesus (God/Man) to the world. Sacred vessles set aside for God, cannot be used for normal use. Like a goblet used in worship cannot be used to drink wine at dinner. Simiarly Mary's womb set aside to bring God's prescence into the world cannot be used for normal use. Luke 1:34,38 was alluding to Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11 who accepted the will of her father and was ever virgin. Likewise because Mary accepted God the Father's will, she became ever virgin. Her womb dedicated to God, could not be used for normal activity.

[@anselman3156]

It is quite conceivable that some things were known in the Church to be true about the Blessed Virgin Mary which were not openly proclaimed as required to be believed, but which God has since led His Church to openly assert. I believe these dogmas, but, as an Anglo Catholic, I can question whether it was right that Rome should assert them as being de fide when they had not previously been held to be so, ie necessary to be believed for salvation.

[@countryboyred]

That’s the biggest issue. By making the dogmas necessary for salvation the RCC has created a huge stumbling block for many potential converts. Many church fathers disagreed on what happened to Mary. Why make this dogma essential for salvation? I’m just as troubled as Gavin is by it. It confuses me.

[@jonycruz2430]

Is becket looking into becoming Catholic like his parents were?

[@prolifefilm8127]

The apparitions and miracles related to Our Lady are WELL DOCUMENTED and should be part of the discussion. In the same vein Gavin could have researched and reported what was considered by the Church in defining the dogmas. Start with humility and seek Truth. Luther loved Mary - think about that.

[@joeoleary9010]

Apparitions etc should not be part of the discussion as it's a change of subject. Luther loved Mary is likewise a change of subject, ie irrelevant. The encyclical Munificentissimus Deus lays out the reasons why Pius XII originated this dogma in 1950 -- to encourage the faithful to have more respect for the message of Catholicism.

[@tookie36]

Oh no it’s not mentioned until the 4th century. Like everything else Christian it seems. Canon. Trinity.

[@TruthUnites]

the canon and the Trinity are very unlike the assumption of Mary. See my recent video on the Trinity for an argument for that; I have one on the canon coming out in 6 days