Is Mary the Perpetual Virgin?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 499

  • @TheRealRealOK
    @TheRealRealOK 6 ปีที่แล้ว +26

    Amazing that Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, comment with NO knowledge of Church history and the true faith. They all have the same lame objections, which have been addressed ad nauseam for 2,000 years.
    There’s a reason many of us left Protestantism and went East. It’s the true Church, the fullness of the faith.
    St. Luke painted the first icon. It was an icon of Mary.

    • @nina793
      @nina793 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/wqnHv9aAPJM/w-d-xo.html the beautiful early life of Mary

    • @andys3035
      @andys3035 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Royal S how would it be blasphemous?

    • @andys3035
      @andys3035 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Royal S what verse? And Mary isn't a being from heaven or an angel.

    • @alexl5660
      @alexl5660 ปีที่แล้ว

      Slander; why do you attack Protestants who honor the Lord Jesus Birth? You are a slanderer, we know more church history than you do you don’t even read your Bible which tells us that Jesus had Brothers, Whose children were those children? You people are deceived and continually slander and betray those who want to live Consecrated lives to Jesus. May God judge you Blasphemers for slandering the true saints many are Protestant Reformed Christians. They believe in Apostolic ministry; but they don’t believe in Pope’s 100% inafllibility. STOP BLASPHEMING GOD’S children of whom I am one.

    • @GizmoFromPizmo
      @GizmoFromPizmo 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      "No knowledge of church history"? The Protestants, I know are much more familiar with the Book of Acts than most of the Catholics I know. You don't get any more "historic" than the Acts of the Apostles.
      What you're talking about is what the corrupt apostates and heretics did with that church AFTER the apostles died off. That's the "Church" you are referring to.
      That "church" doesn't count. That church was either unknown to or rejected by the apostles.

  • @Cuinn837
    @Cuinn837 7 ปีที่แล้ว +29

    I have come to strongly believe that Mary was always, and is now, a Virgin. I used to ridicule Catholics for believing this. But through the Holy Spirit, as well as through my own research and study, I have come to know that they were right and I was wrong.

    • @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian
      @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      +cuinn837:
      God Bless you! Are you a Catholic now?

    • @Cuinn837
      @Cuinn837 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Getting there.

    • @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian
      @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      +cuinn837:
      You have my prayers!

    • @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian
      @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Out of curiosity, have you heard of Scott Hahn or Steven K. Ray?

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      The Orthodox have a typology of Mary compared to the Ark. The Ark contained Manna, the bread of Life. the 10 Commandments-the Law. And the Rod of Aaron, the symbol of the royal priesthood. This and many other examples that I missed is what drew me to Orthodoxy.

  • @rainerwerther4841
    @rainerwerther4841 7 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Its heretical and blasphemy to say the Blessed Virgin wasnt a virgin her whole life.

    • @TheRealRealOK
      @TheRealRealOK 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Rainer Werther It’s even worse than that, it’s anathema.

    • @nina793
      @nina793 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Whether mary was a perpetual virgin or not, it wouldn't matter to me. I love my own mother and respect her for being A Mother to us. Bringing us unto this world did not make her less of a person. Instead it made her a perfect human being that embodies the essence of the universe. A nurturing creator. So to Mother Mary, she is one of the greatest women who deserves to bear children unto this world. Because she will bring perfect human beings like Jesus.

    • @willtheperson7224
      @willtheperson7224 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Gerry Hagen Isaiah 7 14 and Ezekiel 44 2?

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Truly the Bible tells us that Blessed Mary had a Marital Relationship with her Husband (Joseph) after Christ Jesus was born... (ref. Matt. 1:25)... Praise be to God in Christ. Amen.

  • @thomassliger6859
    @thomassliger6859 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Does it matter if every church believed she was a virgin if the Bible teaches opposite??... I’ll stick with the Bible. Why do people seek a religious authority to be over them to the point they will not question what is taught. “Until” in this case means until the birth of Jesus. Just like it says. Jesus gave her to John because James was not yet a believer. And a few hundred years into church history is way enough time for tradition to enter in. Just like this... that is why we have the Bible.

    • @GizmoFromPizmo
      @GizmoFromPizmo 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The Empire's religion uses Mariology as a wedge issue because she is dedicated to division. Mary's perpetual virginity is a difference for difference's sake - a reason to divide.
      Romans 16:17 tells us to mark them that cause divisions.

  • @SLVBULL
    @SLVBULL 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Theotokos is my heavenly mother. She will intercede on my behalf with all the saints as my witness as to what a great sinner I was but repented and turned back to God. Jesus and theotokos mean more to me than anything in this world, they come first than my family.

  • @hollysdad49
    @hollysdad49 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This is where Orthodox Christianity always loses me. Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph.....did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife and DID NOT KNOW HER UNTIL THE BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON. The only way to interpret that passage is after Jesus was born they had a regular marriage. Plus there are passages about Jesus' brothers and sisters.

  • @tbilod
    @tbilod 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I have a positive view of the Orthodox Church. Sorry, there is no Biblical proof that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. For starters, why would Joseph want to marry Mary knowing that he would never consummate the marriage? Families are VERY important in Jewish culture . And by the way, not enough praise is given to Joseph. He believed God and protected Mary by marrying her. If he had turned on Mary she could have been stoned to death. So why no praise for Joseph?

    • @Cuinn837
      @Cuinn837 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Joseph was canonized as a saint; he gets lots of praise. It is likely that Joseph was an older man, since he was no longer around when Jesus was doing his special mission. It is possible that he was a widower with children from his deceased wife.

  • @joshuabeaumont1219
    @joshuabeaumont1219 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    “This is your mother, this is your son”. It’s Christ placing his mother in guardianship of the church, not proof that Jesus didn’t have brothers

    • @thekingslady1
      @thekingslady1 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Did you watch the video at all???

    • @joshuabeaumont1219
      @joshuabeaumont1219 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      The King's Lady I did. Why do you ask?

    • @thekingslady1
      @thekingslady1 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@joshuabeaumont1219 because it was clearly explained in the video. Christ would never have given His Mother over to another man when he had younger brothers who could take of her. That'd be a breach of Protocol/Tradition/The Law.

  • @Cry4Tanelorn
    @Cry4Tanelorn 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    More interview with Father Justin! :D

  • @AlphaOmegaTruth7
    @AlphaOmegaTruth7 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This literally helped me so much . So Joseph was previously Married? And already had children??? I'm just wondering, how is this concluded that Joseph already had children when Mary conceived? It's never mentioned other kids going to Egypt with them. The point made about John being given to Mary as a son almost makes me feel like Joseph didn't have other children. I wish there was concrete evidence for one way or another. Because I want to have evidence to prove my position believing this. As an honest catechumen of the Orthodox faith

  • @joshuabeaumont1219
    @joshuabeaumont1219 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Celibacy doesn’t shock Protestants. Dogmas with no biblical justification on the other hand...

    • @thekingslady1
      @thekingslady1 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Why does there have to be a "Biblical justification"?? Why can't God reveal things over twenty centuries?? Are you aware that there are books upon books upon books of things Christ taught (during His life and for 40 days after His Resurrection) that were never recorded in the Bible??
      Are you aware that nobody ever in Christiandom believed in Sola Scriptura for the first 15 centuries of Christiandom??

  • @beclear2473
    @beclear2473 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS:
    Matthew 1:24-25, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
    Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
    Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
    Mark 6:2-3, "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
    John 2:12, "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
    Acts 1:14, "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
    1 Cor. 9:4-5, "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
    Gal. 1:19, "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
    --------
    LET'S BRIEFLY ANALYZE A COUPLE OF VERSES DEALING WITH THE BROTHERS OF JESUS:
    Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
    Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
    In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers but His cousins, then who is His mother, and who is the carpenter's father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55 refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenter's son refers to Joseph and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus' brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.
    --------
    JESUS QUOTING A MESSIANIC PSALM ABOUT HIMSELF
    Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is that what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted. To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9,
    "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies; What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5 O God, it is You who knows my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from You. 6 May those who wait for You not be ashamed through me, O Lord GOD of hosts; May those who seek You not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7 Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8 I have become estranged from my brothers And an alien to my mother’s sons. 9 For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me."
    The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?" Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics AND ORTHODOX are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons," we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His half-brothers begotten from Mary.

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Ask yourself this:
      Why is my interpretation of the Bible correct?
      What right do I have to do doctrine and worship so differently from the disciples of the Apostles?
      Why did almost no one interpret the Bible the way the Reformers did prior to the Reformation?
      What did the disciples of the Apostles say about how they believed and worshiped?
      How did we get the Bible we have today? Why does my Bible have fewer books than the Orthodox Bible?
      Why is the high view of Scripture I hold as an Evangelical only barely reflected in my worship? Is there a church that truly saturates the worshiper in Scripture?
      Why are liturgical worship and episcopal government the norm for almost all Christians for 2,000 years?
      What is the Church? Does it have binding authority? Can it be located?

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      "Lucky"? What? I'm sorry, are you saying she just happened to win the Lottery of the Cosmos? Really?
      As far as worship, no the Orthodox don't worship her. Can't speak for the Roman church.
      Oh yea, what did folks believe before the Bible? After all, the Bible didn't come around for I don't know, 400 years after Jesus's Resurrection, and even then we were a millenia from the printing press and most were illiterate (once the Bible was canonized-by The Church-it was a decree from the Emperor to make 50 copies for the whole Empire. Of course, the books weren't agreed on even then. It wasn't until the 700s that Revelations was accepted.
      Of Course, Luther changed the Bible, throwing out the Greek text that was in the language of Jesus' day and accepting a different OT translation, as well as tossing out other books. He also toyed with changing verbage in Scripture...
      But I'm sure you know all this.
      So, what has been believed by the 2d largest Christian organization (behind the Roman Catholic church) since the very beginning, almost 2000 years ago? The same group that assembled our Bibles? Maybe we might want to give them a vote.

    • @TheJpgr1958
      @TheJpgr1958 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Frank Herbert:
      So when you pass away, and we all do, and face God, what will you tell Him if he asks you why did you believe what you believed?

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The question you're trying to ask is "what do I believe salvation is?" If you're questioning my faith, well, I guess that's a different conversation.
      Do I view Jesus as nothing other than asbestos suit against the fires of a wrathful God?
      Or is our purpose to be more like Christ?
      Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
      maybe..
      “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
      40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    • @TheJpgr1958
      @TheJpgr1958 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Frank Herbert:
      "The question you're trying to ask is "what do I believe salvation is?"
      That's not the question I asked.

  • @amorfati9163
    @amorfati9163 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    HOW CAN I GET IN TOUCH WITH FATHER JUSTIN FROM AFRICA

  • @brianking4704
    @brianking4704 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    My testimony part two
    I began searching for a Church which taught we are saved by Christ's grace through faith and where saving faith is a verb not a noun nor a one time event. I continued reading and studying my scriptures. In John the Bible proclaims " in the beginning was the word" ; the Bible also testifies " there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, " . All of these Christian Churches teaching opposing interpretations could not all be correct nor true. It is a factual impossibility . Christ said " I am the way, the truth , and the life" .
    I was 28 and working as a salesman. I visited hundreds of homes biweekly selling food. A few of the families began to stand out to me. They demonstrated the fruits of righteousness, of following Christ. No drinking alcohol, no smoking, purity until marriage, education was stressed ,no cussing nor inappropriate movies , keeping the Lord's day Holy, tithing, strong families built on love and Christ's teachings. Finally, I asked each family ,one after the other what there secret was? Each of them were Mormon families.
    Impossible, I thought ! I was taught by Catholics and Baptists the Mormon Church was a cult ! How could a cult demonstrate the fruits of righteousness? It didn't make sense. I like to study religions so asked how I could learn more about there faith and Church? They were excited to say the least. They set me up with a couple of their Missionaries . In our first meeting they taught me about Joseph Smith and his first vision where he saw Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of His Father. Two separate personages . Jesus was in the express image of His Father as Hebrews declares. To my surprise I had no problem with what they were teaching . I felt at peace. After all Stephan ,when he was being stoned ,looked up and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the power on high. Moses spoke to the Lord face to face as a man speaks to a friend. Jesus said he would be on the right hand of the Father in eternity. The Bible declares God is the same yesterday, today, and forever and God is not the author of confusion. This vision was brought about by Joseph Smith reading in the Bible from James 1 vs 5 " if any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not but let him ask in faith and it shall be given him." Ask God directly, having faith in Christ , amazing!
    God keeps His promises!! Right!
    Then it happened . The Elders said they were glad I was soaking up what they were teaching but I needed to gain a Spirit born testimony . Simply deciding the LDS Church was true was not enough . They showed me in the back of the Book of Mormon a similar promise from God as was-in James. It said to study the Book of Mormon and then ask Heavenly Father , having faith in Christ , with real intent , if the words of the book are true and through the power of the Holy Spirit I would know it was true directly from God. They said I could know the truth of all things through the Holy Spirit. The Bible proclaims this and so does the Book of Mormon. I could know all of the Churches teachings were true using God's system.
    I had never been taught in the Catholic nor the Baptist Churches I could take their interpretations directly to God and through the power of the Holy Ghost I would know they were true. In fact I was taught an objective process instead of a subjective process.
    I was determined to place my faith directly in Heavenly Father , having faith in Christ. I was about half way through the Book of Mormon when God answered my sincere prayers. I had been fasting and praying with real intent . All of the sudden my soul was filled with the most divine feeling of God's love and God did brand His truth on my heart. God's presence poured down upon me and was within me. As Jeremiah described ,the word of the God was as fire in my bones. I knew the Book of Mormon was true . I knew Joseph Smith was a Prophet . I knew the LDS Church was true. As sure as Moses's experience with the burning bush and the great I AM . I knew and will always know. The Holy Ghost testified to me with power and love.
    I have since come across another scripture in the Bible commanding us to go directly to God for our testimonies.
    Isaiah 8 vs 19-20
    Should not a people go to their God ? For the living to the dead ? To the law and the testimony ?
    If they teach not this it is because there is no light in them.
    Brothers and sisters I testify to you " the LDS Church is true, the Book of Mormon is God's word as is the Bible; as long as it is interpreted correctly, Joseph Smith was a Prophet called of God and Christ Church is led by a Prophet today, I testify marriage can be forever as families can be forever, procreation can be forever. God did not command you get married and be fruitful and multiply to take this most wonderful blessing from you at death. God hates divorce . Why would He divorce everyone?
    I testify Heavenly Father lives and loves you ! Jesus is the Christ! He lives and loves you ! They promise to answer your sincere prayer . "Saved by grace through faith " I leave my testimony with you in the name of Jesus Christ ! Amen
    The Wilder family and most of the other x Mormon's simply never had the humility nor faith to gain a Spirit born testimony of the LDS Church nor of the Book of Mormon. They , like many other Mormon's who grow up in the LDS Church ,assume they have a Spirit born testimony without ever fasting and praying and gaining one. They never really understood Christ's atonement and continue not to understand it to this day. "We are saved by Christ's grace through faith" .
    We do our best to keep God's commandments all of the time and draw closer to Him through our obedience and Christ saves us all the while as we seek to live after the Spirit and not the flesh. Christ did not suffer so horribly to change God's commandments into mere nice ideas we can pick and choose from. Our relationship with Christ has everything to do with what we do for Him and what He does for us as we walk hand in hand. God's commandments are His plan for our happiness . Fast and pray and you can know this is true through the Spirit of truth. You can know the truth of all things through His Spirit of truth. The Spirit testifies with love and power. You will know , not merely believe. Love y'all !!!

  • @milankrstic5780
    @milankrstic5780 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Good morning😊
    I am from Serbia from Nis the place where Constantin the greyt whas boarn
    I have near my backyard the Ortodox Chrch where I whas baptayz from 3 century 😊
    Ortodox is only truh chirch
    What are you tolking about?
    If you came to Serbija and Greek you will see the Hristos Chirch

  • @dashriprock5720
    @dashriprock5720 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Given what Joseph and Mary had been shown and understood. I don't believe Joseph could bring himself to defile Gods holy vessel, nor would Mary defile what God had reserved for Himself. I used to be of the assumption that Mary had kids with Joseph after Jesus but after giving in thought, I could only conclude it could be. I mean the son of God was in her womb, she conceived by the Holy Spirit..no, her body was for sacred use only.

  • @heavensbattle5171
    @heavensbattle5171 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    First, why does that even matter for the Salvation of sinners? Why on earth, would I be concerned about that, why would I care at all, ESPECIALLY with the whole idolatry, veneration, call it whatever you want of the worship of mary from the catholic church, especially when such blasphemy has been practiced for such a long time, and how this whole thing blinds people in a level that you can't even read Scriptures to them, and when you finally are able to, they deny the very words of GOD, and find out excuses to continue to worship, bow down, pray, and whatever else they do, to a person that is DEAD, and not to mention the craved images of her... I mean.. seriously... do we really have to defend this argument?
    I honestly, and with all due respect, could care LESS about it.
    It doesn't make me less sinner, it does not help in my sanctification, it certainly does not bring me closer to God, but I guarantee it to you, it will bring many catholics even closer to Mary and the idolatry practices.. (just check out your comments down bellow ... hey, good job!!! =D
    It doesnt make me even care about the sin in my life, or being obedient to God, and to Jesus's words...
    Jesus Himself NEVER elevated His mother...
    Luke 11:27-28
    As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and blessed are the breasts that nursed You.” But He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
    AND ...... Did not make her more special than you and I,
    Matthew 12:747-49
    Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.” 48But Jesus replied, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers.…
    Therefore, this whole thing and discussion it is a waste of time, and a BIG BIG BIIIIIIG HUGE ENORMOUS DISTRACTION. (!!!!!!!)
    Be aware brethren!!!!
    About the cross moment about John and Jesus and His mother, we can't assume that, because as far as I understand from Scriptures, Jesus said that He had no place to lay His head, and I don't think He was lying about it, as if: I actually have a home, I just don't want to sleep there anymore.
    So... it seems that His living situations weren't very stable. Which could mean that Him and His family would be homeless, and even fatherless, since Joseph isn't mentioned anymore in Scriptures, and of course, our Lord would care to find a place for His mother.
    But let's say this is all true and yes, she was indeed a perpetual virgin...
    SO WHAT???
    Soooooo what ????
    Awesome man, good for her!! GOOD FOR HER!
    End of story.
    Let's go back to the AMAZING GOSPEL of Jesus Christ and the FOCUS ON THE FATHER AND THE SON - ONLY.

    • @kenanperez3151
      @kenanperez3151 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Dr. Kenneth Noisewater IKr! Where in the bible does it say "Sola Scriptura"

    • @kenanperez3151
      @kenanperez3151 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Clearly you sound like Satan, envious to the Blessed Virgin Mother, The Grace Perpetual Virginity was given to Mary BY God for the plan of Universal Salvation, so if you don't give a single fuck about what GOD did for YOUR FUCKING SALVATION, then...
      FUCK.
      OF.

    • @shirleygoss1988
      @shirleygoss1988 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@kenanperez3151 I understand your point! Why did you need to drop so many F bombs? Completely unnecessary!

    • @dimazanya2568
      @dimazanya2568 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      shirley goss For a person obsessed with virginity mr Perez is one dirty idolater :)

  • @SaraSmilesandCreates
    @SaraSmilesandCreates 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Here’s my thing. Okay... fine she was always a virgin. Who cares? We don’t doubt the virgin birth. I feel like when we put emphasis on this, we do nothing but raise HER up. Yes we can respect her and see what she did. But I think as a chosen child of God to fulfill this prophecy, she humbled herself, she would NOT want any of the glory!

    • @MGBetts1
      @MGBetts1 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      We can (and should) *VENERATE* Mary, but not _worship_ her. Would Roman Catholics agree with this? Yes!

    • @kenanperez3151
      @kenanperez3151 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Not want any of the Glory?
      Mary was so humble and pure that she was exalted into the highest of all creation.
      As jesus said, the last would be the first and the first would be the last.

    • @shirleygoss1988
      @shirleygoss1988 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Sara_Smiles Would it not be more to the glory of God, for her to have remained an Ever Virgin. She bore God the Word! So she could be rightfully considered the Ark of the New Covenant. Should the Ark of the Old Covenant be considered more set apart, and sacred, than the Ark of the New?

    • @GizmoFromPizmo
      @GizmoFromPizmo 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@MGBetts1 - "Venerate" is a weasel word that means "worship". It's a way to say "worship" without saying, "Worship".
      The Empire's religion is all about cosmetics. Change the name and then everything fits. We don't have "patron gods" anymore, now we have "patron saints". It's all cosmetic.
      When you know the word of God, it's very easy to see through these deceptions.

    • @MGBetts1
      @MGBetts1 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@GizmoFromPizmo Sorry, but you're wrong. Just look it up in a dictionary! Worship is for a deity, venerate is for anyone else, including saints. It's no use reading the Bible when you understand it through the lens of some VERY dodgy doctrine!

  • @sayuri1985
    @sayuri1985 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This is why iconography is often called "theology of the poor". If you see icons of nativity, Joseph is always pictured with white hair and away from Theotokos. Also, Theotokos is always pictured with the three stars in icons even from the early christianity. Why do you assume that those people were idiots? They read the same things as we do, but they never interpreted them the way Protestands do today. As for the "brothers", it is common to call close relatives like that in eastern europe and Asia. All you have to do is watch a turkish soap opera to verify it! Finally, this is why tradition is so important. Inerpreting things the way we see them today, while being ignorant of early christian history, is bound to lead to misunderstandings.

  • @sar-ru680
    @sar-ru680 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Please don't put wrong ideas ""until " means upto that moment, and you denied all the scriptural proofs by giving nonsense self explanation.
    Mary was a blessed woman but wasn't other than sinner saved by her lord Jesus.

    • @isabelmarguerite5560
      @isabelmarguerite5560 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @Gerry Hagen Where are the verses in the bible about this?

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The Vow of CELIBACY defeated the purpose of the MARRIAGE Vow... When God created Adam and Eve, immediately commanded them to "Go and Multiply and fill the Earth.: (ref. Gen. 1:28) ... What to fill the Earth?... Human Siblings/Children... not animal or angelic siblings...
    Again, the Main reason why NORMAL People get into MARRIAGE VOWS is to BUILD a FAMILY of their own out of LOVE and not from pure sexual pleasure only...
    Take Note:... DYSFUNCTION to Perform the Marital Sexual Relationship due to OLD AGE or ILLNESS/DISEASE is not an ACT of CELIBACY or CHASTE...
    St. Paul taught us, that Married Couples must NOT DEPRIVE each other from Marital Sex for the Wife no longer has the authority over her body but her Husband, and vice versa... and ABSTAIN temporarily (not permanently) from Sexual Relationships by mutual consent... WHEN?... during PRAYERS, weekly SABBATH, Religious FESTIVALS, PERIODS (menstruation cycle), PREGNANCIES, and ILLNESS/SICKNESS... but after that, they must proceed back to their Normal Marital Relationship so that Satan may not find ways to test and defile their marriage vows due to lack of SELF-CONTROL... (ref. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5)...
    In conclusion, the RIGHT TIME to FREELY accept the Vow of CELIBACY (Chaste) is when your SPOUSE has passed away (dead), then, you are FREE from your MARRIAGE Vows, while still capable of performing the ACT of Sexual Relationship...
    Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking... Glory. Praise, and Thanks be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    God (YHWH) never created MARRIAGE for the purpose of UNITY, UNION, or UNITIVE alone... After EVE (1st Woman) was created out of the Bone and Flesh of ADAM (1st Man), they were BOTH commanded by God to "Go and Multiply to fill the Earth." (marital sexual relationship for procreation). (ref. Gen. 1:28). Getting married is to BUILD a FAMILY, and not merely companionship alone... Without Children is not a FAMILY...
    That is why in those days, as soon as the Young Maiden had their PERIODS (menstruation cycle) they were already allowed by their parents to get married for a bigger and better chance of getting pregnant (the younger woman, the better)... Facts and Truth of the Matters... Amen...

  • @GizelleJane2012
    @GizelleJane2012 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    According to some mystics St.Joseph was chaste.

    • @alexl5660
      @alexl5660 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      This is a heresy and a denial of the Gospels, the scriptures tell us that Jesus had a Brother. She was married to Joseph

    • @GizelleJane2012
      @GizelleJane2012 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@alexl5660 😂 what?? No where in church history proves Jesus having biological siblings. lol
      You must be a Protestant.

    • @randycarson9812
      @randycarson9812 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@alexl5660 *Brothers & Sisters.* In scripture, we cannot assume that the term "brothers" or "sisters" always implies a shared mother. For instance, Abram and Lot are called "brothers" even though Abram was Lot’s uncle (cf. Gen 12:5). Similarly, in the New Testament, John the Baptist confronts Herod, who had married Herodias, the wife of Herod’s "brother" Philip. Despite being called "brothers," Herod and Philip did not share the same mother, as their father had different wives. These examples demonstrate that the term "brothers" in scripture does not necessarily indicate that the individuals share the same mother.
      This is relevant because no scripture verse states that anyone other than Jesus came from Mary's womb. Every instance where scripture mentions a "brother" or "brothers and sisters" of Jesus connects them to Him but NEVER to Mary, indicating they were not her biological children.

  • @TyroneBeiron
    @TyroneBeiron 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    With respect to Fr Justin, Catholics do not and have never placed the Panagia Theotokos as part of the Trinity, and the terms co-redemptrix or mediatrix is not used to describe as new teaching on the role of blessedness of the Virgin. As Fr Justin himself said, all the patriachs and even women like Rachel and Sarah in the old covenant played roles as channels of grace in God's plan, but the pre-eminent conduit and realisation of the ark (made of incorruptible acacia and gold) in whom God dwelt was her, the Theotokos. It does not serve Truth well when misinformation is shared about the faith of the sister-church of Constantinople, as it is not 'charitable'.

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Matt. 1:25... the English word "KNEW HER NOT" is a Modest Way to say, "NOT having Sexual Intercourse with her yet"... TILL she had brought forth (gave birth/past tense) to her FIRSTBORN Son, Christ Jesus.
    Remember the Original Scripture was not written in the English Language... so the English word "UNTIL" or "TILL" was not accurately the same in context and meaning in the Old Greek Language... the most accurate and closer in context and meaning to the Original Greek word is the English word "BEFORE"...
    Logically and grammatically speaking, it would not be specified FIRSTBORN SON, if there were NO 2nd or 3rd Son... otherwise, it should have been written "I knew her not till (before) she had brought forth (gave birth/past tense) to her ONLY SON, Christ Jesus."...
    In conclusion, AFTER Blessed Mary gave birth to her FIRSTBORN SON, that was the only time Joseph had KNEW HER...(had a Marital Relationship with her)...
    Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

  • @tessa7413
    @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Oh I love this! I love a good biblical and historical defense of our beautiful beliefs about the Blessed Mother! I find the Marian beliefs and dogmas to be astoundingly beautiful, and they are all alluded to in the scriptures through Biblical typology, which is something that really puts in me awe of the Scriptures, and helps me to see that they are in fact divinely inspired. The typological understandings & Sacred Traditions of the Catholic & Orthodox churches are extremely beautiful, divine, & true. You would think that if all Protestants really were guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, that they'd come to the realizations of these truths, especially because they are there in scripture (they just fail to see them).
    And it is true, *all* the beliefs about Mary are entirely Christocentric. They all point to Jesus and help to help affirm and solidify His identity.

    • @solascriptura8249
      @solascriptura8249 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Tessa, Hey Tessa let One of God's prophets make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, Isaiah 42.8, Quote, I AM THE LORD, THAT IS MY NAME; AND MY GLORY I WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, NOR MY PRAISE TO CARVED IMAGES. So what part of that don't you Understand? The same idolatry from back then, is alive and well in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox church's. Smh.

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      OK, I need to know ONE THING Tessa. ONE THING. HOW in the world do you get bold text on your posts? I must know this...

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      I'm easily confused....oh look, a squirrel! and a red light! I must catch it....

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Now let's get back to Mary and why-throw the ball!

    • @tessa7413
      @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Frank Herbert next time you post, try putting an asterisk like this * on either side of whichever word you'd like to try highlighting, like **this.** Then hit enter, and see if it works.

  • @sylviag3576
    @sylviag3576 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Dave, I have followed you for a very long time. I have a question for you since you have not yet been through Chrismation, do you believe you have the Holy Spirit? In trying to understand Orthodox Church, I read that it is only after baptism and the oil applied that you will receive the Holy Spirit.

    • @DaveBartosiewicz
      @DaveBartosiewicz  6 ปีที่แล้ว

      I do believe the Holy Spirit is in me. I had an experience when I was 19 years old born again with God coming in . Blessings.

    • @sylviag3576
      @sylviag3576 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dave Bartosiewicz Doesn't that go against Orthodox teaching, or did I misunderstand that?

  • @josephthornhill7710
    @josephthornhill7710 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_Saint_Joseph_and_Jesus_Christ_as_a_baby
    Hi David, I don't know if you can click to this link above, but it's a random sampling of religious paintings by some of the great masters, and the theme is "Joseph and the Infant Jesus." What you'll notice is that Joseph was almost always depicted as a very old man when Jesus was still a baby. For example, look at the works by Guido Reni, as well as many others. Joseph is depicted as a man in his 70's or 80's. Well into the 1500's, Christians still knew some fundamental facts about Mary that we have since lost.
    Specifically, Joseph was a saintly and well-respected man, who was a widower with many kids of his own. His role was that of Mary's protector. He was old enough to be her grandfather, at least. Your Father Justin is exactly right when he says that these were known and accepted facts for hundreds of years, and the real question is, why have modern Christians fabricated a completely different narrative. Honestly, this concept we have of a young Joseph traveling to Bethlehem on Christmas Eve with his pregnant bride is a very new invention, roughly contemporaneous with "A Charlie Brown Christmas."
    As far Mary's virginity, again, you are 100% correct, David. I think it's shocking and sad that people want to discuss and debate it so much. I know how I would feel if ignorant people were talking about my wife's sexual history, and I can only imagine what God is thinking, after all He's given us. Mormons hardly ever talk about Mary. That's not because she's not important, but rather because she is the most sacred and holy woman to have ever lived.
    I've read extensively in apocryphal and early Christian writings, and my understanding is that Mary was set apart and consecrated from her own birth, and throughout her childhood, to be the Mother of our Lord and Savior. I also believe she didn't die a mortal death, but was transfigured and 'ascended.' Just because it's also a Catholic belief, doesn't mean it's not true.
    There's hardly anything at all written in the Bible about the family life of Mary and Joseph. However, there is a small mountain of other early Christian writings devoted to Mary. It's mind-blowing, but I guess not surprising, that so many people want to argue about this with you, when they have no foundation of fact, and simply rely on their own narrow interpretation and specious rantings.
    Of course you and I have differing beliefs, but I respect your enthusiastic and intrepid persistence in sharing your journey. Don't let them get to you, Dave.

  • @garyjaensch7143
    @garyjaensch7143 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Uzza is not the context of “he knew her not until after Jesus was born “

    • @randycarson9812
      @randycarson9812 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      *Until.* The word "until" in Matthew 1:25 does not prove that Mary had other children because "until" does not require a change from what was the case to something different. For example, Paul wrote to Timothy, “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” (1 Tim 4:13) Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul arrives? Of course not. Timothy did not stop teaching, and Mary did not lose her virginity. The word "until" is ambiguous, and Mt 1:25 is of no value in proving that Mary had other children.

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Yes, Joseph and Mary had a Normal (Biblical) Marriage having Children of their own after the firstborn Son, Christ Jesus... (ref. Matt. 1:28).
    The UNBIBLICAL Marriage is when a couple has taken an OATH of Marriage Vow under God (not from the state/govt.), at the same time practicing the Vow of Celibacy... Christ Jewas born to a NORMAL FAMILY with a BIBLICAL MARRIAGE under God...
    St. Paul taught, that a Married Couple must NOT DEPRIVE each other of a Marital (Sexual) Relationship and Obligation for the WIFE is no longer have authority over her Body, but the Husband, and vice-versa... however, they may ABSTAIN for a time (temporarily) upon mutual consent and must return to their normal marital relationship so that Satan may not find FAULT in their Marriage due to Lack of Self-Control... (ref. 1 Corin. 7:4-5)...
    Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.

  • @GizmoFromPizmo
    @GizmoFromPizmo 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    "Sit on my right hand UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool." Paul addressed this "until" business.
    1 Cor. 15:24-28 - Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
    25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. *_

  • @amorfati9163
    @amorfati9163 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    i would like to know if this orthodox church uses pipe organs because in the ethiopian orthodox is against the pipe organs

    • @DaveBartosiewicz
      @DaveBartosiewicz  7 ปีที่แล้ว

      We have no instruments in the Antiochian Church...Only accapella.

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It is a SIN against God's WILL for Man and Woman to get married at the same time, taking the VOW of CELIBACY... if that is the case, it would be better for them to be SINGLE BLESSEDNESS for the SAKE of the Kingdom of Heaven... (ref. Matt. 19:10-12)... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.

  • @guyfromtheeast3196
    @guyfromtheeast3196 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley all affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. But modern day Protestants who reject it think they know better then those hacks, right? 🤷🏼‍♂️

    • @patricklandfair4945
      @patricklandfair4945 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @Royal S So modern protestants have it right but all Christians throughout the world for nearly 2000 years all got it wrong? And based on what, exactly? Early Christians had access to the same Gospels as us, yet widespread denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary is very recent, even in protestantism.
      I say this in love as a lifelong Protestant who only recently came to the Orthodox faith, and this issue was a big stumbling block for me for over a decade.

    • @patricklandfair4945
      @patricklandfair4945 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Royal S I'm Orthodox, my church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, not sure what you mean.
      In any case, all of the founders of protestantism (Luther, Zwengli, Cranmer, Calvin, etc.) maintained the perpetual virginity of Mary. The widespread denial of it is certainly much more recent than 500 years old. This was a shock to me when I learned it, very interesting how far most mainline protestant branches have deviated from their founders in such a relatively short time. Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for example, something unthinkable to me as a protestant growing up.

    • @andys3035
      @andys3035 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Royal S Interesting how you Protestants argue like atheists.

  • @rubentayco1316
    @rubentayco1316 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Mary remained a virgin. This is the teaching of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. They lived with both Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, disciples and the first Christians. There was no bible as we know it for the first 300 years of Christianity.
    Therefore, these Churches are the sole authority of Mary’s status. They were there. You were not.

  • @nina793
    @nina793 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Whether mary was a perpetual virgin or not, it wouldn't matter to me. I love my own mother and respect her for being A Mother to us. Bringing us unto this world did not make her less of a person. Instead it made her a perfect human being that embodies the essence of the universe. A nurturing creator. So to Mother Mary, she is one of the greatest women who deserves to bear children unto this world. Because she will bring perfect human beings like Jesus.

  • @GizmoFromPizmo
    @GizmoFromPizmo 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Let me get this straight: James, the brother of Jesus is His brother but he's not enough of a brother to have responsibility for his mother Mary? If James and his brothers and sisters were children of Joseph's other wives then they would still have had the responsibility for Mary under the Law.
    Jesus gave Mary to John and he took her into his home. John lived in Galilee. That's where he, his brother James and his father, Zebedee were fishermen. So there was no immediate need to drag Mary to Ephesus. John eventually wound up there but we don't know if Mary was still alive when that happened.
    There's nothing about this guy's fake doctrine that holds any scriptural water and indeed it contradicts scripture.
    Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary and Joseph were their parents. That's all the bible tells us and that's all we need to know. It serves no purpose to spin some extra-biblical mythology other than to divide. Mariology is a wedge issue, pure and simple. That's all it ever was and that's all it will ever be.
    The Empire has no interest in unity. She is committed to division.

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The Truth of the Matter is... The PREPARED BODY created solely by God and conceived by the Holy Spirit for God's Son/Word had only the Complete Spiritual DNA of God (Image and Likeness) ALONE just like when God created ADAM on the 6th Day. (ref. Gen. 1:24-31 / Hebrew 10:5) without any other DNA... Instead of God creating the NEW ADAM (Christ Jesus) the same way as the Fallen ADAM from the DUST/CLAY, God used the WOMB of a Young Maiden called MARY... She was the 1st Modern-Day SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD that God had accomplished before Mankind had proven that it was 100% possible in 1985, the 20th Cent. A.D. ...
    WHY not created from the Dust/Clay again?... So that, the PREPARED BODY will not return to DUST/CLAY... unlike ADAM and his descendants (Mankind) from DUST he was created, and to DUST he shall return (ref. Genesis 3:19)...
    The PREPARED BODY has a complete 46 Chromosomes from God (YHWH) alone without any DNA from Mary... WHY?... so that, NO ONE can BOAST that without Blessed Mary's DNA (23 Chromosomes) the Physical Body of Christ is not POSSIBLE... Even if, Mary declined the TASK given to her... God could still find a WAY when there seems to be no possible WAY. (ref. Isaiah 43:16-21)... NOTHING is impossible with God... (ref. Luke 1:37)
    According to Medical Science, after 24 Hours the Blood of the Dead Body starts to decay, by 48 hours the Flesh starts to decay and foul-odor starts to come out from the body... that is why Jews and Muslims buried their Dead Bodies without Embalming just after 24 Hours... Christ's Dead Body did not DECAY even after 3 Days in the Tomb before HE was Resurrected by God on the Early Morning of SUNDAY, 1st day of the Week... according to the 4 Gospel Writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John)...
    Blessed Mary never carried the "SPIRIT of the Word/Son of God" in her Womb for 9 months. The Holy Spirit CONCEIVED the PREPARE BODY created by God (YHWH) and dwelt upon Mary's WOMB in the form of a Ferilized Eggcell (Fetus) was the one she carried for 9 months, and as soon after the PREPARED BODY was born in a form of an INFANT (BABY) BOY in Bethlehem, the "SPIRIT of the Word/Son of God" immediately entered the Baby Boy and St. Joseph called him JESUS (Yeshua)...
    In the same manner/way the "SPIRIT of the WORD/SON "entered the Prepared Body created by God as an Infant Boy called Jesus, the same manner/way Christ Jesus exited the dying Prepared Body on the Cross, by saying... "It is finished, Father (God) into Thy Hands I commit/commend/place/give/entrust My SPIRIT (Word/Son)." (ref. Luke 23:46 /John 19:30).
    Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...

  • @caroleedenning5846
    @caroleedenning5846 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Please consider the following:
    - the Scriptural basis for believing that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin: carm.org/marys-virginity-and-matt-125
    - the lack of evidence for this view from the earliest Christians: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56526/which-church-father-first-taught-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary
    And may the Lord lead each truth-seeker to the truth. His blessings to you!

  • @GizmoFromPizmo
    @GizmoFromPizmo 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Find me an apostle or Gospel writer of the New Testament who knew anything about this doctrine of perpetual virginity. You can't do it because it's not there. The Empire's religion teaches this as a "wedge issue" a difference for difference's sake.
    This doctrine doesn't serve any purpose other than to divide over a non-biblical issue. Think about it. Is Jesus any more the Savior if this myth were true? No, of course not. What theological purpose does it serve?
    It sells more rosaries and religious trinkets. It promotes tourism to far-flung and otherwise depressed areas. It's good for business but it doesn't make Jesus any more the King.
    In fact, it detracts from His importance, focus, and Kingship. It distracts from Jesus as the Mediator between God and man and slips another character between them. It detracts and distracts. It's a wedge issue used by the Empire's religion to divide. "Mark them which cause division" (Rom. 16:17).
    Let me make a prediction as a matter of prophecy or just simple observation: Mariology is the hill that the Roman religion shall die on. She cannot walk this thing back. She's invested far too much. This issue will bring her down, ultimately. But Christians need to keep the pressure on.

  • @OneDayCloserToHim
    @OneDayCloserToHim 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Who cares? Nothing after the virgin birth does a thing to "help affirm and solidify His identity".. as one person below stated.
    Or has 1 bit of importance to add to, the gospel. What a mix of "religious sounding rhetoric" to justify a position.
    The Bible states the importance of the virgin birth was so sin was not passed on. As the man passes the sin principle. Mary was "overshadowed" of the Holy Spirit. On that we can all agree. From that point on, and actually, as we see, prior to the virgin birth, the Bible does quite a sufficient job of giving us "exactly" who Jesus, the Word become flesh, the Jehovah of the OT, whom Jesus said, "I AM",,, was and is, and this topic adds nothing, 0 , Nada, not a thing to His glory and majesty,
    *_Whether she remained a virgin or had 10 children.. Who cares?_*
    Jesus is God in the flesh.. Mary doesn't add a thing to that.. This whole ramble misses the points that are pertinent and important and speak to the perspicuity of scriptures.
    Jesus is whom I worship. He is my intercessor, He is Savior, and friend, and the Father see's His blood in my defense. The Holy Spirit was given because of faith in His death and sacrifice for me.. Period... Mary? She needed a Savior also.. Thankfully she was blessed among women and was chosen to be His mother.. She also must have been quite a person, since she was obviously chosen.
    I won't say one negative thing about my Savior's mother.. But she was a sinner, just like me, who also, needed a Savior. I am sure she realized who He was also, and I will see her in heaven. With the rest of the redeemed, saved by Jesus' blood alone.
    Not only do I not need to venerate, pray to, or talk to anyone that is dead and passed on, or think they can hear my prayers, I have 0 desire to speak to the dead. Those that tried to speak to the dead... ohhhhhhh.. wasn't good .. That is not a good thing.. no no...
    My Savior is alive.. He tells me to come boldly by His blood, before the Father, to receive grace and mercy in time of need.. Period..
    *_It isn't I don't think highly of who Mary was.. I see her also, for who she was.. A sinner, saved by grace._*
    And quite plainly, completely without any ambiguity.. I see she has no role, in anything mentioned pertaining to salvation, other than the virgin birth of Jesus, pertaining to anyone, in any book of the Bible.. 0. She has 0 "special rights", and certainly unable to mediate for anyone for sin. That is well.. if it is not true.. please tell me.. what would that be called?
    She is never mentioned by Peter, Paul, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude etc etc etc in regards to God's plan of salvation. She is not the gospel, nor any part of the "good news" Paul preached. I don't see her preached in Acts either? Do you? Come now.. Any other place?
    Go from the plainly stated, bearing that in context, and let that speak to us and what we would want to "make" the Bible state.
    She is not the "gospel". *_She adds_* 0 *_To His majesty and identity and glory after the fact, she was a virgin with child of the Holy Spirit_* And of course not! How silly. God is the Almighty!! My gosh.. He the infinite I AM... really... she adds to that? Forgive me.. that is ludicrous.
    Paul preached Christ Jesus and Him crucified. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. We are to preach the cross, which is foolishness to those who are perishing.. Sorry Tessa.. *_Mary needed, and I am sure she did understand, Jesus was also, her Savior._*
    LoveInJesus

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Amen Tim! Jesus is our God.. and I see Nada, 0, ability of Mary to do a thing for anyone.
      LoveInJesus

    • @s.sflower
      @s.sflower 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      AMEN!!! Beautifully said! I will have to screenshot what you wrote. May the Lord Jesus Christ keep blessing you and may you keep preaching the Gospel, the truth. God bless you abundantly!

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@s.sflower Hi dear one. So sorry I never thanked you for your kind words months ago. I didn't notice it, so please forgive me, it wasn't on purpose. Just an old man missing a kind response from someone. All His best to you and yours!
      LoveInJesus

    • @s.sflower
      @s.sflower 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@OneDayCloserToHim oh no worries, totally understand! Amen!!!

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@s.sflower Thank you!

  • @tessa7413
    @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    A couple very good books on the Marian Doctrines are *"Hail Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn,*
    and *"Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines" by Tim Staples*
    And here are some great videos on Mariology:
    *The Truth About Mary and Scripture: MUST SEE!*
    th-cam.com/video/kUdYeYy3NQA/w-d-xo.html
    *Tim Staples: Former Assemblies of God Pastor Talks about Mary*
    th-cam.com/video/MLsBVRn1U_0/w-d-xo.html
    *Scott Hahn - Hail Holy Queen*
    th-cam.com/video/3o50ajVvJ5I/w-d-xo.html
    *Dr. Lawrence Feingold - Mary Prefigured in the Old Testament*
    th-cam.com/video/3sqpKp_eVn4/w-d-xo.html

    • @juanllanez2968
      @juanllanez2968 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Tessa all the glory to jesus,3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
      4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
      5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
      Only him,no the mother of Jesus or Joseph his father

    • @juanllanez2968
      @juanllanez2968 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      tim spangler good point,they need to read the biblie

    • @tessa7413
      @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Juan, We worship God *alone,* but it is not wrong to venerate the saints, and this has been a consistent practice in all orthodox Christianity (Catholicism & Orthodox) from the very beginning of Christianity. Only since the Protestant revolution, have certain Protestant Christians done away with venerating and praying to the saints.
      The Mystical body of Christ consists of all Christians living on earth as well as the angels and saints who are already in heaven. We are all in communion with one another and God through Christ, and He uses us as instruments when we cooperate with His grace. If God wants our faith to be just He and us alone as individuals, then why would He have us participate and use us as instruments to transmit the faith to one another? Why would He found a Church? Why would He use people throughout Salvation History to build upon the Deposit of Faith, and why would He come to us through the Blessed Virgin Mary - to be conceived of her flesh and carried in her womb? To be born from her, and raised by her? God could have chosen any way He willed to save us, but He chose to do it with the participation of one of His human creatures. Mary has a very important role in Salvation History, as God has revealed to us through the scriptures and the Church. The Marian Doctrines are all Christocentric, and reveal more deeply who Christ is. It can rightly be said "No Mary, no Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus."
      Mary is God's masterpiece, and if you don't want to acknowledge her or honor her, and give her the respect she is due, you are really snubbing God, because she is His handiwork. To honor and respect God's saints, really gives glory and honor to God, and it is a way to express our appreciation and thanks for what He has done, and continues to do for us. The Saints are like our family members in the Mystical Body of Christ, and we look up to them as examples of people who've given their lives to God.

    • @tessa7413
      @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Tim Spangler, you've been trolling Catholics for years (seemingly 24/7), and posting the same drivel over and over and over. You've been presented with the truth, and refutations to your questions, anti-Catholic accusations and corrections to your scriptural misinterpretations over and over and over by thousands of Catholics over the years, and you've yet to give any reasonable or intelligent arguments against the Catholic claims. The "debates" with you are always entirely one sided, so I think most Catholics who are familiar enough with you have begun to ignore you, because they'd rather not waste any more of their time on you. You are no longer invincibly ignorant, and at judgement, we will all held accountable for whatever willful ignorance we are guilty of.

    • @juanllanez2968
      @juanllanez2968 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Tessa is good way to put it, but in reality you worship VIRGEN mary
      Given our devotion to Mary, it comes as no surprise that there is an abundance of Marian Solemnities, Feasts of Our Lady and (optional) memorials of the Blessed Virgin Mary in our liturgical calendar. We also have May, which considered the “month of Mary“, traditionally marked by beautiful, flower-strewn Marian processions. And October, which is regarded as the “month of the Rosary”.
      Some of the dates that we are perhaps most familiar with include:
      January 1 - Mary, Mother of GodFebruary 11 - Our Lady of LourdesMarch 25 - The Annunciation of the LordMay 13 - Our Lady of FatimaMay 31 - The Visitation of the Blessed Virgin MaryJune - Immaculate Heart of MaryAugust 15 - The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin MarySeptember 8 - The Birthday of the Blessed Virgin MarySeptember 24 - Our Lady of WalsinghamOctober 7 - Our Lady of the RosaryDecember 8 - The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
      There are many other memorials marking the various titles given to Mary. We’ve got Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Our Lady of Sorrows, Our Lady Refuge of Sinners … You get the idea.
      Most of these wonderful feasts can find us relying on a small selection of (fairly old-school) Marian Hymns.

  • @s.sflower
    @s.sflower 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I'm sorry but the new arc/ covenant is Jesus Christ, the One who died on the cross for our sins... and resurrected and reigns forever.

    • @orthoglobus
      @orthoglobus 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Theotokos Mary is the new Arc who contained in her womb our Lord Jesus Christ:
      th-cam.com/video/paRk6FoANsQ/w-d-xo.html

    • @kenanperez3151
      @kenanperez3151 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      You say that Jesus is the New Ark of the Covenant? Then who was its contents? Who was the Word of the Living God? Who was The Bread of Life from heaven? Who was the Ruler with an Iron Rod?
      The ark of the covenant is just a container, a seperate entity from its contents, Yes, Jesus can bare himself in his own womb if he wants to since he's omnipotent, but I'm pretty sure it was Mary who CONTAINED Jesus according to the Bible.

    • @willtheperson7224
      @willtheperson7224 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      That's to say that Jesus has the truth not that he *is* the truth.

  • @sylviag3576
    @sylviag3576 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Jesus brothers were not believers in Christ until after His death, which is why he chose John, she needed to be with believers. God did not need Mary to fulfil His plan. She was blessed to be chosen, but praise belongs solely to God.

  • @GizmoFromPizmo
    @GizmoFromPizmo 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I would love to get this guy in a debate. His stories are all over the place. Mariology is shoot-from-the-hip religion.

  • @BenWeeks
    @BenWeeks 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Fair enough theory. Alternatively: The step brothers could have cared for her. Even if she had other children perhaps John was a better caretaker as a disciple. She's blessed either way. There's a degree of interpretation going on here. I don't see it as heresy either way. One in Christ!

  • @windywithachanceofsunshine5219
    @windywithachanceofsunshine5219 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Dave, Another amazing video! Thank You!

  • @jenniferroshto7377
    @jenniferroshto7377 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    This was really thought inspiring! I always believed Mary was a virgin while she was betrothed to Joseph and that after the angel told him not to be afraid that she was pregnant because she had done nothing wrong; she was with child through the Holy Spirit and both Mary and Joseph were favored in God's eyes.
    I also believe that Joseph did what was favorable to God by taking Mary as his wife, but not sleeping with her until after Jesus was born.
    I'd never read/heard that Joseph was old and gray, or had previous relationships and children. I'd really like to see more about that! I also wonder if Jesus was a decendant of King David through Joseph, how did that really factor in when Mary was pure and chosen to be Jesus Earthly mother but Joseph was basically a step father? All very good things to read, reread, and pray on. Thank you!!

    • @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian
      @BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      +Jennifer Roshto:
      Are you looking into Catholicism?

    • @GizelleJane2012
      @GizelleJane2012 ปีที่แล้ว

      According to the early church fathers, mystics, saints, & dogmas of the Catholic Church, St.Joseph NEVER had sexual relations with our blessed mother… what you stated is blasphemous & it goes against church teachings.

    • @jenniferroshto7377
      @jenniferroshto7377 ปีที่แล้ว

      I'm a Baptist, and it doesn't make sense that Mary would remain a virgin after Jesus was born. The angel specifically told Joseph not to have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. The New Testament even mentions Jesus had brothers, so Mary and Joseph went on to have children together in my opinion. The Holy Bible specifically states that a wife must submit to her marital duties (sex). As far as I know, Paul was the first person to suggest a man not marry so he could focus on the great commission, so why would Joseph have been chaste; it doesn't make sense that he would get married if it was his intention to remain chaste, even after Mary gave birth. If this is in a book that's not in the traditional Old & New Testaments, I'd like to know, though it doesn't really have anything to do with the great Commission. I certainly don't mean to offend any Catholics. While some believe their religion is the only way to Christ, I feel we're all Christians if we've done what Romans 10:9 says. God bless!

    • @GizelleJane2012
      @GizelleJane2012 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jenniferroshto7377 with what authority do you have to interpret the Bible?? There is absolutely no historical proof Our Lady had more children.
      What you are doing mam is spreading heretical statements, based on your own opinion on what you think what the Bible is saying.

    • @jenniferroshto7377
      @jenniferroshto7377 ปีที่แล้ว

      My authority is from reading Matthew 1:25 "but he (Joseph) did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to A son." There is no biblical foundation for him not having sexual relation with her. Other son of Mary by Joseph are stated plainly in Matt. 12:46; 13:5; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; John 7:3, 5, 10, Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19. Catholicism holds the belief that you should not question the Pope, but other Bible believing followers read the holy book for themselves and if anyone is without understanding, they directly to Jesus for clarification. You clearly are firm in your beliefs, which is fine, but I don't think you have the authority to call my beliefs a heresy. That isn't very Christlike.

  • @rascal211
    @rascal211 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Joseph was married before and had six kids with another wife who died. Protestanst get that all confused.

  • @jvlp2046
    @jvlp2046 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Take note... the "PREPARE BODY" of Christ Jesus was created solely by His Father God (YHWH).. (ref. Hebrew 10:5)... Angel Gabriel said that the HOLY SPIRIT (not the Word/Son) will dwell upon her (Mary) and bear a Son, to be named as Jesus (Yeshua)... That means the Holy Spirit will CONCEIVE the Prepared Body created by God and place the Fertilized Eggcell (Fetus) into the WOMB of Blessed Mary... thus, she became the 1ST Modern day "SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD."
    Just like (Fallen) ADAM was created by God solely from God's Image and Likeness (God's DNA)... likewise, the NEW ADAM (Christ Jesus), the PREPARED BODY was also created solely by God's Image and Likeness without any HUMAN DNA which comes from Blessed Mary... so that, no one could BOAST, that if not from Mary the manifested Flesh of Christ was not possible... for NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE with GOD... (ref. Luke 1:37)...
    The Apostles CREED supported this declaration... (in part)... "HE (Christ Jesus) was CONCEIVED by the HOLY SPIRIT and BORN by the Blessed Mary... (and so on)."
    "Blessed is the WOMB that bore the Son of God, the Savior." (ref. Luke 11:27-28)... so, the WOMB of Mary is BLESSED, which was why she was called Blessed Mary and not VIRGIN MARY...
    The Prophecy of Mary came true... she said, "I will be called BLESSED among women and BLESSED is the fruit of your WOMB for all generations to come... (ref. Luke 1:42-45)... Early Christians of the 1st and 2nd Cent. A.D. and Evangelical Christians of today called and acknowledged her as BLESSED MARY and not Virgin Mary as The Roman Catholics do due to their Doctrine of PERPETUAL VIRGINITY... which is not written in the Bible... NON-BIBLICAL...
    St. Paul said, "DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN."... (ref. 1 Corin. 4:6)... and warned Christians regarding False Teachings... (ref. Galatians 1:8)...
    Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.

  • @monicahensley1273
    @monicahensley1273 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I appreciate this video as it is important for us to know what we believe and why.
    The Priest is correct in order to come to the conclusion that Mary is the perpetual virgin you have to rely on text outside the bible and 'tradition'. I hold the Word of God without error and adequate for all we need to know to live a life of faith.
    If Mary's perpetual virginity was so critical for us to know, I think it would be discussed in the scriptures without having to read into the text or outside documents. God did not see it as important. Reading Ezekiel 44 at the Feast of Mary has become a tradition.... The text at face value is about the temple - not Mary. The text is 'twisted' to make it about Mary.
    If Mary were to be 'revered' or be 'special' or 'worshipped' why did Jesus not set his mother apart in the following situations?
    Luke 8:19-21 while Jesus is teaching the crowds:
    Then His Mother and His brothers came to Him but were unable to join Him because of the crowd. He was told, “Your Mother and Your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you.” He said to them in reply, “My Mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.”
    Luke 11:27-28 "While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
    While in Luke 1 Mary is called “favored one” which means “ to grace” (in the Greek) it is only in the sense that God chose her to be the human mother who would give birth Jesus.
    Having said that we have all been endowed with grace -- Eph 1:6
    To exalt Mary(or any person) is what humans want to do - it is human wisdom not God's wisdom.
    I chose to worship only God.

    • @ChaseMac22
      @ChaseMac22 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      100% agree. They probably won’t address those verses you quoted. The true Mary wouldn’t want the attention on her anyway. If she was as humble as they say she was then they should see all the more how she would want ALL the focus on Christ. She would be screaming “I’m just a vessel, I’m not the focus”. She would say Luke 17:10:
      “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

  • @lindaharding2057
    @lindaharding2057 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Just Biblically based? That’s not enough?

    • @shirleygoss3540
      @shirleygoss3540 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Linda Harding The Bible is very important, that is a given. At Matthew 16:18, what did Jesus promise? Did he promise to print his Bible, or to build his Church?

    • @personofpeople7027
      @personofpeople7027 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Linda Harding www.noblequran.com/translation/

    • @jesusacuna309
      @jesusacuna309 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Martin Luther invented the idea of "Sola Scriptura."
      You will never find "Bible alone" or "scripture alone" anywhere in the Bible. It fails its own test xD

    • @nickys3225
      @nickys3225 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Gerry Hagen The word “rather” used in most English translations is actually “indeed” (μένουν), so Jesus is not rebutting what this woman said but is really affirming her words. “Blessed indeed are those who keep the word of God and keep it”, which is exactly what Mary did.

    • @jesusacuna309
      @jesusacuna309 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Gerry Hagen who brought popes into this? This video is of the eastern orthodox. Who, like every Christian before the 16th century, pray to Mary.
      Furthermore, it is not self evident that the Bible affirms itself as the sole and unchanging source of God's word, because the Bible itself does not address "the bible" at all. It was a collection of books that the Church declared canon.
      The fact that the Protestants removed 7 books from the old testament, thereby declaring that every other christian council was wrong on the biblical canon, is further evidence that the Bible cannot exist in a vacuum. You can't have the Bible alone, because if you base yourself on only the Bible, you don't even know what the Bible itself IS.

  • @benjaminw309
    @benjaminw309 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    These views likely originated mid second century in the Protoevangelium of James which is at best a forgery and at worst Gnostic in origin. It's an interesting short read This is where we get many views about Mary and Joseph including his old age which you mention. Even Origin referred to it as spurious. Like many apocryphal works, the writer lies about who he is and uses anachronisms.
    Contra 6:56 of the video, as with most universal claims, perpetual virginity was not held universally in the early church. Hegesippus for instance said that James was the brother of Jesus "by the flesh" - so not a step brother. And cousin doesn't work either because there is an actual Greek word for cousin which he uses in the same writing when referring to Symeon the son of Clopas (and that word is never used of Christ's brothers in scripture)
    Also Tertullian taught that Christ had true brothers. Jerome writes him off when arguing for perpetual virginity. Victorinus also seems to argue Christ had brothers, but Jerome tries to interpret his words in accordance with his own beliefs. In fact there is a name for early deniers of perpetual virginity - Anidicomarianites.
    I'm not well versed in this subject, but I just want to point out this belief likely originated from a forgery and that it wasn't universally held in the early church.

    • @bryanjensen355
      @bryanjensen355 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It is true there were some early detractors from the belief. But read the arguments of those who did teach it. They don't hang their argument on the Protoevangelion. (Notwitstanding that we have elements of it that were included in the Syriac translation of the gospels (Tetragrammaton)). They make their argument from what became the New Testament-e.g., see Jerome's "Against Helvidius". Calvin robustly took up and defended Jerome's interpretation in this tract even though he didn't consider the perpetual virginity, while accepting it, not a central dogma of the faith.
      I get it that you feel differently-notwithstanding your departure from even Reformation fathers Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley who also considered themselves biblically sound. Your view isn't that it is so much clearer and enlightened in understanding the Bible or in being Bible-only, but that you are ascribing yourself to a different hermeneutic and tradition.

    • @bryanjensen355
      @bryanjensen355 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Second, the Protoevangelion is not gnostic (it is non-canonical pseudepigrapha, though a widely translated and distributed one unlike many of the gnostic texts); it robustly embraces the material incarnation of deity, which the gnostics uniformly denied or reinterpreted as only an apparition. And were it the source of the acceptance of perpetual virginity of Mary, you'd likely to have seen Irenaeus call it out like he did their other heresies, not defend her virginity.

    • @benjaminw309
      @benjaminw309 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Bryan Jensen Hi Bryan. Nice to talk to you again.
      I find your argument compelling that is not Gnostic. Some do make that claim as well as some claims of it being influenced by mithraism. I can't say I know what those claims are based on.
      What is clear however, is that it is a forgery. The author was a liar and used a number of anachronisms. And yet it is the earliest source we have teaching these commonly held views of perpetual virginity and the age of Joseph and Mary and Josephs previous children. These beliefs all are in this forgery.
      The early church simply didn't talk about Mary much the way it would in later centuries. Her role would develop and we can still see it developing even today in the West. I don't see why Irenaeus would be that concerned with it or whether he would have even had access to it. It was likely written during his lifetime and there was no printing press.
      I don't make the claim that the early church based their arguments on it. But I do believe it was a popular in the time it was written and influenced the tradition of which later writers thought was authentic. Much like Gnostic texts, it claims to be written by an apostle to make it seem trustworthy. And unfortunately people believed it.

    • @bryanjensen355
      @bryanjensen355 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Hey Benjamin. Hope life is well with you, too.
      Many Christians who use gnostic just use the term dismissively to mean "not in my Bible therefore worthless", when the term means very specific things in the history of Christianity and the Protoevangelion doesn't contain their teachings.
      Furthermore "forgery" is a very loaded term. The Protoevangelion of James is a pseudepigraphal book it is true-attributed to an author by an author(s) who didn't write it. The truth is we have many pseudepigraphal books in the Bible, not just books that we know now through historical and textual evidence weren't written by their named authors, but were known anciently as so; that alone is not basis for why books were or were not included in the canon. It was about the Apostolic or Evangelistic discipleship, overseer and master/teacher relationships through which they descended and how trustworthiness was conferred through the life of the church. Thus, for example, 2 Peter or Hebrews get included even though the author was disputed or unknown but still trusted, due to its widespread use throughout churches of various metropoli. Revelation was one such book that stayed extremely controversial long after it was generally considered canonical in the West. Thus some of this history rolls up as part of the New Testament books that Martin Luther considered removable (antilegomena). (A very drastic response/view in my opinion.)
      It is true that the Protoevangelion was widely disseminated based on the many fragments that have been found in various ancient tongues. And we know it had an oral tradition despite the written tradition because of this fragmentary evidence, as well as parts of it ended up being incorporated into the Gospels of the late 2nd century Syriac translation by Tatian. If it had been among the "gnostic gospels" they could have just as easily been included outside of central church control. But yet they weren't and so we know they (like Gospels of Mary [Magdalene] or Thomas]) weren't widespread, trusted documents. (Notwithstanding that intra-textually such are consistent with gnostic worldviews not Orthodoxy.)
      But ultimately the Protoevangelion was not a canonical book - meaning it wasn't read as part of the church liturgical calendar - but that doesn't mean it wasn't read and circulated for wisdom. That said, despite whatever influence was there, if you read the Fathers who wrote about this topic of Mary's virginity, they did not make their arguments rest in citing the Protoevangelion, but from the Bible. Calvin used Jerome's "Against Helvidius" to counter Protestants of his day who were arguing that it was a Catholic heresy to teach such- even though he himself thought it an authentic biblical teaching albeit not a dogmatic one.
      Yes, it is possible the Protoevangelion's circulation influenced how people read the Bible texts, but that is frankly a non-starter because they didn't base their arguments on it prima facie. Therefore you can only assume or infer the directionality of influence. Their prima facie arguments from what would become New Testament texts, are consistent with allowable Greek meaning, nuance, cases and intra-textual reference-so that's what has to be faced if one wishes to be so bold as to label it damnably false, as some modern Protestants do.
      It's a very modern assumption - a new interpretive hermeneutical paradigm- significantly borne through post-Reformation anabaptist worldview, that believes that the "one man and his Bible" can come to it tabula rasa to perceive only its "clear" meaning apart from any interpretive tradition of the church. Even in light of textual critical methods, what we also know of framing, sensemaking, rational and logic biases, paradigms, inherited symbol-meaning, etc., that this is demonstrably a naive assumption. The divisions in the church over history-but especially the many over the last three centuries-only underscores it. Nevertheless it is now a symbiotic lifeform of Western Christian mindsets from which one cannot simply, easily unplug oneself.

    • @benjaminw309
      @benjaminw309 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Bryan Jensen Forgery is an accurate word. The author willingly misrepresents who he is for the sake of his writings and uses anachronism. Pseudepigraphal doesn’t necessarily capture the idea of willful misrepresentation. Forgery better fits the idea I am trying to communicate. It certainly shouldn't be read for "wisdom" when it is know to be a forgery. Should we accept the Donation of Constantine too?
      I really don't see how you can make the claim of oral Tradition or how it is supported by fragmentary evidence. That's a big assumption. The bottom line is that the earliest known reference to these beliefs is from a forged document. We don't have anything prior. And Origen seemed to think many people based their belief in the perpetual virginity on it.
      "They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, **basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter,5264 as it is entitled, or “The Book of James** ,”5265 that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, ..."
      I don't believe 2 Peter is Pseudepigraphal. I recognize that is a common belief particularly among liberal scholarship. It's seems inconsistent that you would argue for Tradition on one hand and reject the ancients on this point.
      The issue of interpretation and hermeneutics is not really the subject of my post here so I'm not going to delve into that here. I think we have touched on that in the past anyway.

  • @kennethblair3196
    @kennethblair3196 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Your right she is a virgin, along with all the millions of saints that are in heaven now with their brand new spiritual bodies.

  • @TuyenPham-jm5eq
    @TuyenPham-jm5eq 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Mary, Our Evervirgin Mother
    God never changes. If God changed, He could only change for the better or for the worse. Since God is perfect and is always perfect; He neither can become better nor worsen. This, however, does not in any way mean God cannot change His plan. He can change whatever in His plan He wants, but He himself never changes.
    The Word is God and the Word never changes. Every year at the Easter Vigil, Holy Saturday Night, as the main celebrant blesses the Paschal Candle, he chants the prayer, Heb 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” So, since the Word never changes, when the Word is spoken, as in Mat 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel”, these spoken words will never change; therefore Mary, a virgin, is always a virgin. If Mary were a virgin for only a number of years in her life, then the Word would become untrue after these years had passed. The Word, however, is the truth and is always true; so, Mary, a virgin, must always be a virgin. Moreover, as the Word was spoken, Mary, “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son”, not sons, these words will never change; thus Mary gave birth to only one son, Jesus. Though Mary gave birth only to one Son; through Baptism, many have become children of God by being incorporated into the Body of Christ. Therefore, all those who belong to Christ’s body are also sons and daughters of Mary. So Christians, honor Mary, our evervirgin Mother. He who denied Mary’s virginity denied the words of God.
    The Universal Church, the Body of Christ, teaches: The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Evervirgin".156 (Catechism of The Catholic Church 499, see CCC for foot notes 154, 155, and 156).

  • @darktruth2358
    @darktruth2358 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    It seems more like you WANT to believe it. You emotionally NEED to believe it. Personally, I don't care about it one way or the other. It doesn't factor into the essential Doctrine, as much as you pretend that it does. Christ's divinity and redemption do not rely upon it.
    It's also insulting to say that only sex-obsessed people can't fathom virginity and celibacy. Nonsense. I think I missed my monastic calling (putting aside my inherent questions that would probably disqualify me.... but those are beside the point.)
    The basis for questioning perpetual virginity has NOTHING to do with the inability for a person to believe celibacy is possible. Some of us don't think celibacy was NECESSARY for Mary.

  • @textilebro
    @textilebro 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    great interview Dave !

  • @juanllanez2968
    @juanllanez2968 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    That means Joseph is father of God to?

  • @englishorientalorthodoxhym2235
    @englishorientalorthodoxhym2235 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    thank you very much. GOD bless you. you give correct response for luther follower. MARY IS EVER VIRIGIN.

  • @KennethRothey
    @KennethRothey 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Misunderstood, we gather false impressions, and hold them closer as the years go by, till virtue often seems to us transgression and thus men live and die misunderstood.

  • @brianking4704
    @brianking4704 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    My testimony part one
    I would love to share my testimony with you. I was raised in a good Catholic home with nine brothers and five sisters. Lol Attended private Catholic schools from first grade to twelfth . Went to mass six days a week . I was taught about my Savior Jesus Christ and the mysterious trinity. God as one physical being but three separate persons at the same time. Taught not to self study the Bible but to follow the counsel of our priests and nuns . I had a nice childhood in a loving family. I loved God and my family. I was taught the power of prayer and faith in Christ.
    At eighteen I began working at an oak furniture company. One of my friends and work mates was a youth pastor at a Baptist Church. We began to discuss our faiths for hours at a time. He had a big advantage. I was taught as a Catholic the Bible was the word of God but did not study it on my own. I began studying the New Testament, reading it over and over. I read when Mary called Jesus her Savior. The Bible proclaimed she has more children and Jesus brother was one of his followers. In Timothy I read the main requirement for a man to be a Bishop in the original Church was for him to be a good husband and father. Then later in Timothy I read in latter days there would be doctrines of devils; forbidding men to marry and to abstain from certain meats. The most troubling was when the Lord commanded us not to pray in vain repetition. To make a long story short ,I left the Catholic Church and began to attend a Baptist Church. I gave my life to the Lord and was "saved". I was baptized a few days later. I was hungry . Feasting on the words of Christ . Studying the entire Old Testament a couple of times and the New Testament several times. One Sunday our Pastor taught the doctrine of eternal security . We are saved by believing what Christ did alone and not by anything we do personally. Once "saved "we could not lose our salvation. There was nothing we could do or not do after this event where we could lose our eternal salvation. Ephesians 2 vs 8-9 was the primary scriptures shared. " for by grace are ye saved through faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God .
    Not of works, lest any man should boast. " hmmmmm I was puzzled. I asked after Church if he could meet with me. He agreed. I asked if the core Evangelical doctrine was we are saved by believing in what Christ did on the cross alone and not by anything we do? He said yes. I asked if we are saved by grace alone and not by what we do? He said yes. Hmmmmmm . I then asked, do we have to have faith to be saved ? He said yes,faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross. Hmmmmm. My next question was " is believing in Christ an action? " He said yes. Do you have to repent of your sins in order to be saved? He said yes. Do you have to accept Jesus as your Savior to be saved? He responded yes. Are these all things we must do in order to be saved? I thought you were not saved by anything you do and yet you are telling me there are indeed things I must do in order to be saved? I testified to him that faith in Christ is something you do. Christ grace is a gift which none of us can provide but faith is our part of the salvation equation and is in itself an action or something a person does. He proclaimed it is an action but not a work. I proclaimed tomato, tomoto! The core Evangelical doctrine is we are saved by grace through faith and not by anything we do? You don't even believe this yourself for you are saying there are indeed things we must do in order to be saved. We both know faith in Christ in itself is an action. The core doctrine of the Evangelical churches had fallen apart right before my eyes. I then asked him if the Bible was the inerrant word of God ? He said yes. I then showed him several scriptures in the Bible which testified you must be baptized by both water and the Spirit to be saved. I then showed him several scriptures which testified you must endure to the end to be saved. I showed him scripture after scripture which testified you must follow Christ and be a doer of the word and not just a hearer. I testified to him we are indeed saved by grace through faith but faith is an action. Our relationship with Christ has everything to do with our actions . A couple doesn't have a successful marriage by simply saying " I do " at the alter. Our relationship with Christ is the same. " if you love me, keep my commandments" .
    Christ does not save us in our sins , He saves us from our sins as we walk with Him in a covenant relationship . Christ did not die so horribly to become an instrument for sin. The doctrine of eternal security makes his sacrifice an instrument for sin when you proclaim your faith in Christ has nothing to do with anything we do. He was perplexed. I then said you do believe we are saved by what we do, you simply believe there are less things you have to do .
    We all know lots of people who are proclaiming Christians who live to the flesh and not to the Spirit. When confronted they simply say , " I was saved when I was six, nine , fourteen, twenty two, fifty , etc... I have nothing to worry about " the teaching of once saved always saved allows for this . Christ's atonement exploited. I then asked him if he thought God would hold him accountable for these souls? Won't they testify against you on judgement day when you stand in front of God? Our meeting ended.

    • @DaveBartosiewicz
      @DaveBartosiewicz  6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Brian, you have shared this 3 times. I will not continue to have you paste this throughout my videos. Once is enough...This is not your platform. May God bless you.

  • @frankherbert6476
    @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Blessed Feast of the Annunciation of the Theotokos! As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.
    This argument was defeated. We all now (at least 99% of Christianity) believe in the two natures of Jesus in hypostatic union. There are now only a handful of believing Nestorians in the world.
    We can see now how the Title Theotokos is a way the early believers articulated who Christ was, way before the New Testament was put together, much less distributed. You may not be Orthodox, but you can at least give a shout out to those on whose shoulders we stand!
    Fast: no meat, dairy, eggs-wine, fish, and oil allowed.

  • @OneDayCloserToHim
    @OneDayCloserToHim 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I actually don't care if you think Mary was a virgin until she died. I don't believe this, and the example above DAve, was quite a weave of someone saying "context", and ignoring it. But as for salvation, it won't matter. However, if you pray to her, you sin.. flat out. No room at all. Only God answers prayers, Only Jesus is who my heart is to, or wants to worship. This is central and important. It does not glorify God at all, if she did, or did not remain a virgin. That is ludicrous. The issue is, central to the context, the Holy Spirit overshadowed her.. end of story, and that is the importance. It was important in context of scripture to show, Jesus did not have the sin principle in nature. It is passed on from the man. This is the importance and context we see about the "Virgin" birth. But when you add your take, well, a little bit of leaven ,,
    Another rather silly statement is, if it wasn't for Mary, salvation would not have been possible? And then taking the same thought and extrapolate this for other hero's of the faith.. LOL..
    Yes, all are to be held in respect, and we are to see examples of how God dealt with them.. and other aspects of course. But to "relate" anyone to, "well without them, we just wouldn't have _________ "

  • @kennethblair3196
    @kennethblair3196 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Jesus said no man can get to the Father except through me. Praying to Mary won't get you there.

    • @theresurrectionandthelifem4971
      @theresurrectionandthelifem4971 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Kenneth Blair
      Asking her to pray for us is wrong?No

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Mouska Sang Hi Mouska, pardon me, but of course, He did. He said not worship anything.. period.. other than Him. because He alone is God, and God, shed His blood on the cross to that by this sacrifice, I can now, and bid, to come *_boldly_* before Him, to ask for anything and everything.. because He is and wants to be.. my everything.. Praying to the dead is ... well and best it is an exercise in futility, at worst it is really delegating Who God is, my provider, strength, sacrifice, and only means of approaching Him, and treading on the precious blood of Jesus. The dead do not hear you, and only God answers prayers.. and He says... I need no one, but His blood to come to Him... nothing else will do... But .. sure .. He didn't "say", "Don't pray to Mary" , .. specifically.. The Bible teaches us principles, gives light, and just because it doesn't say, "Don't run over your enemy with a car", does that mean it's ok to it them with a baseball bat? That was .. well sorry Mouska, that was a logical fallacy without much thought put in.
      I have to say against Mary! She must have been some person.. I mean the Father chose her for redemption for all of us.. She is as all who have passed and believed Jesus is her savior, God.. But there is no place ever ever ever ever ever I see, in contrast to your statement, we are "told" to pray to the dead.. She was a sinner, saved by His precious blood.. just like you.. just like me.. period.. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... Now does it 'have to say Mary there? How about, all? That ok.. Yes it is inclusive. Just like "You will have no other Gods before me" is exclusive... God is that way.. a jealous God.. of us it says.. I love that. I am sooo desired by God... soooo loved.. why would I pray to anyone else.. sincerely
      Now, I covet other believers prayers for me.. hey.. you can pray for me.. please!! In like manner... of course I will pray for you.. The Bible, plainly says the prophet was a man like us, and he earnestly prayed that it would not rain, and it did not, and relates us to Him.
      We are all Kings and priests before God the Father, by the blood of Jesus alone. The gospel is the good news, and the gospel is the cross, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Died for our sins, raised for our justification on the third day. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. ,, Dear Mouska.... this was Johns final admonition in closing.
      Don't kid yourself dear friend.. anything we are "praying" to, is an act of worship, in place of worship of Him who is worthy..
      So.. you may want to understand this Biblical or even common sense in life understanding... When I explicitly say to not do something, then that covers those things that are like or in the same reference. I don't have to say, "You shall have NO other God's before me",, and tell you.. "oh, don't pray to the door post"... lol...
      I don't have to say to you,
      13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
      14 And this is the confidence that we have *_in him,_* that, *_if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:_*
      15 *_And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him._*
      And then have to explicitly tell you as the Father.. "oh.. never mind that.. that I hear you when you ask in Jesus' name... ask Mary to ask for you" ?????? Really?
      The gospel is the good news! Jesus Christ crucified! And I am completely forgiven, before Him in love, because when He see's me... the Father that is.. He sees Jesus' blood .. poured out, so I can cry.. "Abba Father".. ahh I love that.. Jesus.. just so makes want to as Thomas after He saw.... and we have in the KJV, "My Lord and My God"... and in the Greek text it is literally like this.. and sheesh.. me too.. this is my heart..
      "The Lord of Me and the God of me"....
      Jesus.. the name ABOVE ALL NAMES.. What a powerful name it is.. the NAME of Jesus Christ.. my King...
      12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
      13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
      14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.2
      15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
      16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
      LoveInJesus... and praying "For" you Mouska.. to God alone, who alone forgives sins, by whom I am crucified with, and a new creature... Lord bless..

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Mouska Sang I don't misunderstand. To pray is an act of worship.. Sorry. And you've ignored the major context of what was said to you. Mary was a sinner, she is saved by Grace alone and the whole context of scripture is "we are all dead in our sins, separated from God", and the "whole world is guilty, stands hushed", "For there is none righteous, no not one"... Mary is in in need of a Savior, no different, dead in her sins. Being full of grace is not meaning she was anything else.. The word for "none", is not ambiguous.. neither is "no not one".. That is scripture twisting to come up with something desired, at its worst.
      And separately, additionally, there is not a single instance in the Bible, where we are implicitly, or explicitly told nor are we directed, to pray to anyone but God.. Sorry, Mouska. You responded, but ignored context and simply reiterated your statement as fact, dismissing context given. But hey, love ya.. Stop praying to anyone other than God.. It is an idol, whether you realize it or not..
      Also.. You are placing supplication, requests, worship, to someone "other" than God, in place of the Almighty. Where is the exegetical basis for that? Really? No Mouska, it is not Biblical, but going beyond what is stated.. dangerous always... Doctrines of men.
      She is not able to pray for you.. Show me? Hmm? Show me scripture to validate this?
      No friend, there is none. You have added to scripture to build a "pet" doctrine.
      Jesus says anything you ask in my name. if it is in His will, you have.. Of course, you ignored that one also... YOu did respond though, thanks.
      LoveInJesus

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Mouska Sang Pardon me, but again, because you responded, but gave no answer, because there simply is none in scripture:
      I don't have to say to you don't do something, when He says, very plainly "Do This or such and such", and context is not confusing and there is no obfuscation. nor is it a hard thing to understand. And we are commanded many in places, and explicitly told to us by the Father, one thing, and He never contradicted what He said and stated,.. "oh.. never mind this clear directive of my will.. when I tell you, that I hear you when you ask in Jesus' name... ask Mary to ask for you" ?????? Really?
      13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
      14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us:
      15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
      DON'T you pray in Jesus' name?.... Then ? This is not hard to follow Mouska, at all.
      LoveInJesus

    • @shirleygoss1988
      @shirleygoss1988 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@OneDayCloserToHim GOD IS WONDEROUS IN HIS SAINTS.
      A comment like yours would appear to deny God the right to get praise in and through His Saints.

  • @jesuschristismygodtotheglo7533
    @jesuschristismygodtotheglo7533 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I have no problem with the title Theotokos. But you take it to the extreme in your litanies, blasphemously saying, More honerable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. Thou who without stain bore God the Word and are truly Theotokos we magnify thee.
    You have taken the statement of the blessed virgin, saying, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and have inverted it to saying, We magnify thee. You have failed to publicly mention this, because you know in your heart that you have exalted her equal to Christ our God. You say that you deny the doctrine of Imaculate Conception, and yet, you say that 'without stain' St. Mary gave birth to God the Word. You are well skilled in using oxymorons such as these, such as: We don't recognize the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, but his premousy. Then you go and call the Pope of Rome 'Head Among Equals'. You hypercritics! with your wide borders to your vestments, and exalted prefixes attached to your clerical titles; you clearly violate the commandments of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I gave you a thumbs up, but had second thoughts and removed it, because some things you say is right, and some wrong. And so much you do not mention. I understand that to be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, that one must be in full agreement with her. And that is why I left this church. Also, recently, you leaders have become pretty damn chummy with the Vatican and in their apostatic jestures, such as the Jubilee 2000 celebration. So, you are in participating in the spirit of antichrist. This is perhaps why the Apocalypse of St. John is never read from in your liturgical cycle.

    • @kenanperez3151
      @kenanperez3151 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      No one was saying she's equal to God, sure she was exalted above the angels, she was pure and immaculate, but we're not worshiping her and she is not equal to God.

  • @rizzogizzo6000
    @rizzogizzo6000 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    And yet holy Scripture says...
    Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
    - Genesis 4:1
    24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
    25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
    - Matthew 1:24-25
    Notice the word “knew.” That’s sexual relations. I love the Orthodox Church but this one isn’t accurate. There are many more verses in Matthew and Luke that show a full marriage experience between Mary and Joseph. And the age gap is not facts but speculation. They were definitely not the same age. But how old was Joseph? That’s unclear throughout history. Just here say. Assuming there was a big age gap still wouldn’t mean anything considering the culture of their day. Even now in the Middle East, thats still a thing. A lot of marriages out east are arranged marriages as well. Point being, historical and cultural context is key.
    Mary is the mother of God. Mary is blessed. Mary is a Saint. Mary was a virgin. But not perpetually. The Bible is so clear. In my opinion it’s somewhat silly to even make this a dogma.

  • @thebiblestudyhelper9389
    @thebiblestudyhelper9389 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Mary is a virgin not because she never had a child or even sex .
    Any person who lives in holy matramony their whole lives are seen as pure in the eyes of God .
    People why do you think marriage is called holy ?

    • @SLVBULL
      @SLVBULL 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      The Bible Study Helper but she never did have children.

  • @claytonpalmer7284
    @claytonpalmer7284 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    I've been studying eastern orthodoxy for a year and half, i am still not sold on this. And look the first sermon ever i preached in front of other protestant minister was over the veneration of mary-she is our mother. But my question is must i believe in her being a perpetual virgin in order to become Orthodox.

    • @shirleygoss3540
      @shirleygoss3540 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Clayton Palmer Everything about Mary should point us to her son. Jesus is the focal point. It is always Jesus! Also notice in the Bible she is always listed as the mother of Jesus. It lists other names, but never says they are the children of Mary. Is it possible that this is just an assumption on the part of some Protestants, who are considered Evangelicals?

    • @claytonpalmer7284
      @claytonpalmer7284 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Shirley thank you for your comment, i simply ask did Mary the mother of Jesus witness his resurrected body? if so what scripture verse.

    • @shirleygoss3540
      @shirleygoss3540 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Clayton Palmer I don't remember you asking in your previous comment. My question would be this: does there have to be a Scripture verse for everything?
      It stands to reason, since she was at the Crucifixion, she would have witnessed the Resurrection. She was in John's keeping, and John was a witness to that event..

    • @claytonpalmer7284
      @claytonpalmer7284 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thank you for your reply. You asked if Protestants are just assuming things. My question (and your lack of an answer) if whether or not Mary was at the resurrection shows Protestants are not the only ones who assume things.

    • @shirleygoss3540
      @shirleygoss3540 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Clayton Palmer I pray I have not discouraged you. I simply don't recall a specific verse.
      I will pray for you, and ask the same favor of you.

  • @rubentayco1316
    @rubentayco1316 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    If you say Mary had other children, then you are also saying she is an adulteress. A blaspemy. She is married to God and God do not die. If she had children with another man when her first husband is still alive, then she is guilty of adultery. That will make Jesus, your Savior, the ‘son of a bitch’. In Spanish, ‘ijo de puta’. Is He?

  • @jesuschristismygodtotheglo7533
    @jesuschristismygodtotheglo7533 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The protoevangellion of St. Jacob (James) should have remained canonical (as well as Enoch). Mary, the Lord's mother, is the ark of the New Testament, an antithesis of the impurity of Eve. Cain was not the son of Adam, otherwise Enoch would be called the 'eighth from Adam' not the 'seventh from Adam'. But the Orthodox Church goes overboard with the veneration of icons, which becomes idolatry, and all the immoral consequences involved with idolatry. Icons, and the rules for writing icons, makes them not to different to magic talismans. So the Protoevangellion of Jacob confirms that the Lord's mother remained a virgin and that Eve was wholly seduced by the serpent. See John's Gospel chapter 10, 1Cor. 11.
    PS. THE WORLD IS FLAT! There is a firmament separately the waters below from the waters above.

  • @107milviews4
    @107milviews4 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    That Ezekiel verse was took out of context he was talking about actual door !
    Ezekiel 44 King James Version (KJV)
    44 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
    2 Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
    3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
    4 Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house: and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord: and I fell upon my face.
    5 And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the Lord, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.

  • @nina793
    @nina793 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    th-cam.com/video/wqnHv9aAPJM/w-d-xo.html the beautiful early life of Mary

  • @ChrisT_John3.16
    @ChrisT_John3.16 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:25, Mathew 12:46.

  • @pastorart1974
    @pastorart1974 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Mary was a Virgin until Jesus was born, period. Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55-56 identify Mary's other children. The children Mary and Joseph had together, the old fashioned way.

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Ask yourself these questions and do some digging.
      Why is my interpretation of the Bible correct?
      What right do I have to do doctrine and worship so differently from the disciples of the Apostles?
      Why did almost no one interpret the Bible the way the Reformers did prior to the Reformation?
      What did the disciples of the Apostles say about how they believed and worshiped?
      How did we get the Bible we have today? Why does my Bible have fewer books than the Orthodox Bible?
      Why is the high view of Scripture I hold as an Evangelical only barely reflected in my worship? Is there a church that truly saturates the worshiper in Scripture?
      Why are liturgical worship and episcopal government the norm for almost all Christians for 2,000 years?
      What is the Church? Does it have binding authority? Can it be located?

    • @pastorart1974
      @pastorart1974 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Why is my interpretation of the Bible correct?
      I've read the Bible for myself, many times, have you?
      What right do I have to do doctrine and worship so differently from the disciples of the Apostles?
      How do you know how the Disciples of the Apostles worshiped? You don't. The only Authoritative teaching is found in the Bible.
      Why did almost no one interpret the Bible the way the Reformers did prior to the Reformation?
      Two reasons: 1. If you didn't and were vocal about it, the RCC would kill you. 2. Prior to the Reformation, almost no one had a Bible in their own language. Remember the printing press was invented only a few years before the time of Martin Luther. Prior to the Reformation, the Bible only existed in Hebrew (Old Testament), Greek (New Testament), the whole Bible existed in Latin and Greek.
      What did the disciples of the Apostles say about how they believed and worshiped?
      You can read about this in the writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers.
      How did we get the Bible we have today? Why does my Bible have fewer books than the Orthodox Bible?
      There are sixteen books in the Apocrapha, which existed in Greek at the time of Jesus. The Jews decided in about 50 AD, that these books were not to be considered "Scripture". The early church agreed with them. It wasn't until 1546 that the RCC added 7 of these books to the Canon, because these books made reference to Purgatory, whereas the original 66 books do not.
      Why is the high view of Scripture I hold as an Evangelical only barely reflected in my worship? Is there a church that truly saturates the worshiper in Scripture?
      There are many and if I knew where you lived, I might be able to help you find one near you.
      Why are liturgical worship and episcopal government the norm for almost all Christians for 2,000 years?
      What evidence do you have for the above statement?
      What is the Church?
      The church is the people who follow Jesus. The word church never referred to a building until several hundred years after the last of Jesus' Disciples.
      Does it have binding authority?
      We first need to define, "What is the Church?" before we can answer that.
      Can it be located?
      Anywhere were there are followers of Jesus.
      To reach me, Pastor Art:
      Phone: talk2apastor.blogspot.com/
      E-mail: kontactr.com/user/pastorart1974
      To reach Pastor Art by snail mail: POB 2, Arlington Heights, IL 60006-0002

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Why is my interpretation of the Bible correct?
      I've read the Bible for myself, many times, have you? Yes, so by this statement alone, I'm also right. I mean if it's personal interpretation, then who is anyone to tell anyone what the Bible says to them...
      Why did almost no one interpret the Bible the way the Reformers did prior to the Reformation?
      Two reasons: 1. If you didn't and were vocal about it, the RCC would kill you.----Kind of forget that Zwingli and Luther almost went to war over the Eucharist? Or that Calvin "took care of business" as well? The RCC (not defending them BTW, again I'm not RC) didn't have a monopoly on killing people who didn't believe the way they did.
      If the Protestant world/Reformation got it right, then why do we have thousands-tens of thousands of folks that all are different, but all claim they have it right?
      How did we get the Bible we have today? Why does my Bible have fewer books than the Orthodox Bible?
      "There are sixteen books in the Apocrapha, which existed in Greek at the time of Jesus. The Jews decided in about 50 AD, that these books were not to be considered "Scripture". The early church agreed with them. It wasn't until 1546 that the RCC added 7 of these books to the Canon, because these books made reference to Purgatory, whereas the original 66 books do not."
      OK, this isn't quite true. The Septuigant vs Masoretic. The Masoretic was developed by Jews that were actually against the Christians, and developed a translation of Hebrew, not the Koine Greek that was used in Jesus' time in order to disprove references to the pre-Incarnate Christ in the OT. This can be proved on its face by how the Septuigant's references of Old Test scripture matches up, whereas the Masoretic is all over the place.
      If the Masoretic came about 50 years after Jesus came and went, why would we use an OT translation that Jesus and his followers didn't use themselves? That Paul himself didn't study, use and reference?
      Still didn't answer the question-where did the Bible come from? Why do we have those 27 books and not Clement, Gospel of Peter etc?
      I'm not interested in picking any fights. def not questioning anyone's faith (although many question mine) and I'm not Roman Catholic, so that part isn't part of the equation. I'm simply saying there's a depth of the faith that most Western Christians aren't appreciative of, even if they don't agree with some things. That or we Americans don't really believe that all those folks being slaughtered in the Mid-East are real Christians, so why worry, right?

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      While I await your reply to my previous statement: Another question regarding Mary (of course, belief in perpetual Virginity of Mary has nothing to do with salvation within the Orthodox framework)...If Mary had other children, why didn't any of them take over her care instead of John? Jesus would not have had to be clear on the custom of the oldest son taking care of the mother. This would have been understood. However, his statement gives clarity to this, he is giving the responsibility to John (John 19:26-27
      I say this because we are both Christians looking at this from two different frameworks. I am a former Lutheran (in my youth) Baptist/non-denom (which gave me a wonderful love of Scripture and Christ) that is now Orthodox. Prior to tripping over the Orthodox Church, I had no real experience (most don't) and just assumed it was "The Catholic Church without the Pope" which of course couldn't be more wrong.
      It took me a LONG time (and my Priest made me take a long time-nearly 2 years) to not only accept, but understand that there was an Ancient Church that is still around. As a child of the Reformation (my Lutheran roots) I had no interest of anything before the 1500s. After all, that was nothing but the "Catholic Church". I had no idea that there was an organized, organic Church from the get go. I mean, Paul spent nearly 2 years in Corinth and all we have are two small letters. That's all that was important?
      I had to come to terms with, is that the Orthodox Church had bishops like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaus of Lyons. That Athanasius as a young deacon defended the Christian faith against a rogue presbyter Aruis who used his own interpretation of Scripture to deny Jesus as eternal, and if he hadn't won the debate, we'd all be Jehovah's Witness in our theology. This led to the creation of the Christian statement of faith known as the Nicean Creed. Today we take for granted what a Christian believes (although exactly what this is can be up to debate depending on which denomination one belongs to, out of the tens of thousands out there, all figuring they have it right)
      This same Athanasius was the first to list the 27 books of the New Testament without addition or subtraction.
      This same Church compiled and met and prayed and was guided by the Holy Spirit to come up with the New Testament...a fact we don't appreciate today.
      then there's places like St Catherine's Monastery, that has been in constant existence since the 500s...
      What if the gates of Hades never prevailed?
      As an Orthodox Christian, I recognize that the dogmas of the Church pre-exist the New Testament. Therefor, I no longer search the through the Scriptures seeking to discover what I believe, like I'm on an Archeological dig, determining what kind of dinosaur from fossils. Rather I see Scripture that which the Church has already taught because Scripture belongs to and came from the Church. This means that at times there are portions of the faith of the Church which do not have clearly footnoted Scripture reference as many forms of Protestants have. However, the teachings of the Church are in consonant with the Scriptures she birthed.
      I found that there was a lot of Scripture to discuss that I hadn't highlighted. Or frankly dismissed because it didn't fit my self-serving bias. "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter." do we dismiss the spoken word? Well, of course, because in the west, we don't believe in continuity.
      How about something as simple the Lord's Prayer. There are two forms in the Gospels. Which one do you (or 99% of all Christian faiths) use? Chances are it's the same. Why? Because it's the one that's ALWAYS been in use.
      The last example (and there are many) is the Eucharist. From the get-go, the early Christians believed that Christ was truly present in the Lord's Supper. Among other things it personified his humanity conveying grace. In Scripture we see many references, such as many who fled and couldn't handle the teaching. But let me use one word.."remembrance". Now this was translated from Latin to English and in this context is clearly in the past tense. But even the early Reformers believed in the presence of Christ in the present tense. WHy? Well, the word "remembrance in koine Greek (even current Greek) has a nuanced meaning. It means "to bring to life currently a past event".
      In the Protestant world, it's very legalistic if you think about it. it's just a regulation, a command of Jesus. An ordinance. But other than "following the rules" it doesn't DO anything.
      But Orthodox view it differently. It conveys grace. Just like laying of hands, or the woman with the issue of blood touching and Jesus feeling his power leaving him. Or Peter's shadow, or " so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out."
      The Orthodox view themselves as having the fullness of the faith. One thing that impressed me was the fact that they do not judge the faith of others. "We know where the Holy Spirit is; we do not know where it is not." Judge not, lest ye be judged.
      Orthodoxy is a way of life. Prayer, fasting ("when you fast" not "if")prayer, prayer prayer. continual repentance. Continual development of the relationship with Christ. Of becoming more and more like Christ, like a poker taking on elements of the fire, even if it can't become the fire.
      I hope and pray this long letter makes it clear the different points of view. Most people with negative comments (hateful and judgmental some) have never really read up on Orthodoxy, much less visited one or had a real discussion with a priest. I pray that we can more concentrate on the common ground as Christians, and if we disagree, we can do so while taking the other's POV into account.
      I'll gladly share more about my journey if you care.
      Christ is in our midst!
      He is and forever shall be!

    • @pastorart1974
      @pastorart1974 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Those who argue that Mary was a perpetual virgin aren't arguing with me, they argue with Saint Matthew, Saint Mark and Saint Paul. They argue with Scripture.

  • @mxracer1999
    @mxracer1999 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Jesus had brothers and sisters so how is this physically possible?

    • @orthoglobus
      @orthoglobus 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Jesus' brothers and sisters were actually children of Joseph from his first marriage, however they were considered (as per the Law) as His brothers. If Virgin Mary had also other children, why did Jesus had to entrusted her to John and not to her children [John 19:26]?
      You may find much more biblical clues on this issue here: www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/praktikes/panagia2.htm

    • @orthoglobus
      @orthoglobus 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Theotokos Mary was not married with Joseph, but only engaged. Engagement in Mosaic Law had also legal status as for the adoption of a child by a man and so the engagement between Mary and Joseph had exactly the purpose of protecting Mary's virgin birth from being considered as illegal and her being stoned as an adulteress. Thus Joseph played rather the role of Mary's protector than of her husband. The informations concerning Joseph's first marriage have been delivered to us by the ancient christians and are in line with the 2000-year living tradition of the Church. Don't expect to find every single detail of Joseph's life in the Gospels, since this was not possible to be done even for our Lord's life [John 21:25]. However, if you insist on biblical words (alike the word 'brothers' for the description of Joesph's children), how would you explain the word 'father' that was used by Theotokos Mary for describing Joseph [Luke 2:48]? Should we conclude that Jesus was the son of Joseph and not the Son of God?

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I heard a wonderful sermon today about when Mary was told she was "favored" among women. Was so good. I could say so much about it, but what strikes me is, her reaction and trusting. She is an example to me, as so many other figures in the Bible. She must have been some person, and I can see by her reaction, she was, to be given God, to take care of, nurture, raise. I am afraid that's it though. What I see in context nowhere, does she bring salvation by ANY belief in her for my sins. She was a sinner, who needed to believe, dead in her sins the Bible states, as who we all are, until He makes us alive in HIm, by grace through faith.. period.. I never see anyone not even those around be directed to pray to her. No friend, I do believe we may be brothers in Christ. But it is by His blood alone, i am bid to come. The Holy Spirit is given and I see nothing, 0 about her in any of the letters of Paul, or context in scripture that would in any way intimate, I need her for anything.. Sorry. It really doesn't matter to me if she did or did not have children after Jesus. We could debate that point. But the issue, is, she was just like your mother, my mother, anyone's auntie who never had children.. or any other woman in that respect.
      All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.. and we are "all" dead in our sins, separated from God, and need His grace to make us alive. She was wonderful in her examples, and I will not say anything against the one God the Father chose to bear the Son.. And I won't go beyond the context of scripture either. And make an idol.. sorry . I don't need anyone but His blood, and by that, I am bid to come into the Fathers presence, with boldness...
      Oh, please don't think I am casting you as someone that prays to Mary. I have no idea. I do see that as a danger when we lift up people. I need Jesus. He is everything to me. My friend. My Savior, My Lord and My God.. I am sure He is and was that to Mary also... best to leave it there. She was flesh.. like the rest of us. A created being.. By the creator of all things.. "all".. Mary too.
      LoveINJesus

    • @tbone1693
      @tbone1693 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Concur. Jesus was a Jew. He was raised and provided for by a very devout Jew (Joseph). Jewish custom and law of the time would have put the care of Mary in the hands of Joseph. Absent Joseph, in the care of Mary's biological adult children. In reading the gospels in the context of the times (something the Orthodox church has almost 2,000 years experience doing) it is clear that when Jesus placed his mother in the care of his disciple John, it was because Mary was already a widow (Joseph was absent from the crucifixion as he was deceased). Also clear that there were no other biological children to take care of His widowed Mother. The life of a widow was hard in biblical times and the Jews stressed showing charity to a widow - Exodus 22:21-3, Deut. 12:26, Isaiah 1:17, Jeremiah 7:5-6. I find it a beautiful thing that one of the last acts of our Savior prior to his death on the cross was to show love and devotion, as a Son to His Mother, by ensuring that Mary was taken care. IC XC + NIKA

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@tbone1693 Hi T Bone, I agree totally. What we do see at the crucifixion, were some that were "standing off", we are not given specifics on. So I can't add what isn't told, i.e. were they Mary's other children? Sure we can conjecture, but we cannot build sound Biblical exegesis on that. They may have been, it "may" have been dangerous for men to be there, as I read one commentator.... We are told, Jesus brothers did NOT believe in Him until after the resurrection. Perhaps not believing, they would not go? Perhaps they in fact did. That we cannot say, we are told... What we do see: Mary was there and so was John.. the disciple Jesus loved.. He had enough faith? courage? Whatever, but He was there. It says Jesus looked and saw them, and then gave, those awesome words I believe also. Of course, He took care of His mother. And John we are told was there.. End of what we ARE TOLD... Adding to what we are told, is soooo dangerous.. I won't denigrate Mary at all.. She was quite a woman. God the Father chose her to be the mother of the Word become flesh!! My mouth is shut. He thought she was the right choice.. She accepted to her credit... Some folks miss that. . I love that she said, and she must have thought and known it would cost her, in her culture.. to be a pregnant unwed mother. Of course, she knew.. counted the cost.. and said, paraphrasing, "Just like you said, let it be done to me".. Now .. sheesh.. an example for me.
      Now,, because I really don't want or have any desire for people like Orthoglobus to cast me, or think me ungrateful to God for Mary, or denigrate her in any way.
      That said. That is it. She said and proclaimed "God my Savior".. She was a Jew. She also knew.. she needed a Savior. Her words. She knew, and treasured up in her heart things Jesus said, and knew, she was chosen to be His mother, and accepted it, to God. She was going to birth, not only "The Savior", "God with us".. She was going to birth, her Savior.
      Perhaps some should accept, she was and knew, she was a sinner.. needing a Savior.. The Christ.
      Now, the real reason, I see this is perpetrated, and a question raised is, to develop utter heresy. It isn't heresy saying, "Mary never had those other 2, they were....... " < Fill in the blanks. I don't believe that at all, but either way, worst case, poor Joseph was defrauded by his wife.. Most likely to me, of course, they were man and wife. But either way, it isn't heresy I don't think to believe it.. you just believe she was a great mom,,, and a lousy wife to Joseph.. I really don't care to debate that issue, as that, really doesn't bare on salvation.
      This part does, and I would like to post that next.. The real reason, Mariology is ... well to follow:
      LoveInJesus

  • @Tsumebleraar
    @Tsumebleraar 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I can understand why many American evangelicals convert to the Orthodox church, especially because there is so much shallowness and confusion amongst American evangelicals. I myself love my brothers and sisters in the Orthodox communities. However Americans should be warned. What they experience in their western Orthodox communities is not the norm in countries like Greece, Serbia and Russia. There Orthodoxy is deeply involved in narrow nationalism, superstition and consists in many cases of nothing more than empty ritualism. Very little of the Gospel is found in many places, although there are off course some wonderful exceptions! I am so happy to have Jesus Christ as my sole Mediator and Highpriest… He is enough for me and I don’t miss relics, candles and incense!
    Mary was a married woman and had other children so she could not be a virgin!

    • @jesusacuna309
      @jesusacuna309 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      What other children? If she had another child, Jesus wouldn't have had to tell John to take her in, she would have automatically been given to her next oldest child

    • @jesusacuna309
      @jesusacuna309 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Liberalism is a Cult
      That "until" is a tricky word to translate. Because it doesn't mean you stopped after it happened. Otherwise, we would have to say Jesus will stop being seated at the right hand of the father, and that Michah had children /after death/.
      Here's a 4th century source talking about it; www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
      "Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophetsays to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 Even to old age I am he. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? Although elsewhere he says, My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness. I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself."
      We should look back to what the older teachings of the church are.

    • @theresurrectionandthelifem4971
      @theresurrectionandthelifem4971 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Noordeman
      If she is not a virgin why Jesus said behold your mother?

  • @approvedofGod
    @approvedofGod 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    The Roman Catholic Church is known as the "goddess cult." Acting like "perpetual virginity" is a sound doctrine is Ludacris. These men have no fear of God, defending an unbiblical doctrine. Judgment day is coming. Why don't they give the origin of said doctrine?

  • @glennbarrett8354
    @glennbarrett8354 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    You have use scripture and not men's ideas. Mathew 1:2 says Yeshua ( Jesus ) was Mary's " first born son Also if She was perpetual virgin, She wouldn't have consummated Her marriage with Joseph. They would not be married, only a platonic relationship.

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Ask yourself these questions:
      Why is my interpretation of the Bible correct?
      What right do I have to do doctrine and worship so differently from the disciples of the Apostles?
      Why did almost no one interpret the Bible the way the Reformers did prior to the Reformation?
      What did the disciples of the Apostles say about how they believed and worshiped?
      How did we get the Bible we have today? Why does my Bible have fewer books than the Orthodox Bible?
      Why is the high view of Scripture I hold as an Evangelical only barely reflected in my worship? Is there a church that truly saturates the worshiper in Scripture?
      Why are liturgical worship and episcopal government the norm for almost all Christians for 2,000 years?
      What is the Church? Does it have binding authority? Can it be located?

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Royal S I have no clue of your POV as this was two years ago....please remind me. counter argument for.....

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Royal S It depends on a couple of things...1. I'm not going to try to convince you. I'm simply going to give you information. 2. It's not open to debate. What I will state is what the Christian Church in total believed for well over 1500 years, not my personal opinion; even the early reformers from Catholicism believed it, so you can either chew on it and accept or not. It's not "my" personal interpretation, but, as I said, fact. 3. You can argue or deny, and that's OK, but that's your biznezz. Sound good? Willing to chew on some stuff? Or are you having me give info just so you can argue back? That'll just be a major waste of our time.
      Let me know......

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Royal S ok so that didn't take long. 1. Not Roman Catholic. Actually they are neither Roman Nor Catholic. 2. Your last comment tells me that no matter what I say, no matter what evidence I present, you're "right" and I'm "wrong". I'm not wasting my time with that. Fine. You prove your point since you've decided about me. I was a Marine for 21 years. Can't hurt my feelings. No one says you Have to believe the virginity of Mary (maybe the Catholics do, but I had a bad time as a Lutheran at a RC school...) So tell me why she didn't retain her virginity, why it's important to the Christian faith she didn't, and evidence to prove. Feel free to use cultural norms of the time, scriptural references, typology, historical evidence that the known Christian faith was in agreement. I'll be waiting. Cheers!

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Royal S WHy are you sending me something Catholic? The Catholic church didn't even come around until 1054 and they have continued to go....

  • @krakoosh1
    @krakoosh1 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    unsubscribed

  • @stephanielink3021
    @stephanielink3021 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Just curious, How would they explain the fact that she would not be following Jewish laws if she didn’t have sex with her husband on the sabbath?

  • @gregsmith1115
    @gregsmith1115 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    She was a virgin with Jesus. She gave birth to sons and daughters with her spouse Joseph afterwards. The perp virgin story is made up and comes out of various mother and child cults dating back to ancient Babylon. The RCC is the leader of the harlot church of end times written in Rev 17 by the apostle John. As the great Casey Stengel used to say, "you can look it up."

    • @orthoglobus
      @orthoglobus 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Jesus' brothers and sisters were actually children of Joseph from his first marriage, however they were considered (as per the Law) as His brothers. If Virgin Mary had also other children, why did Jesus had to entrusted her to John and not to her children [John 19:26]?
      You may find much more biblical clues on this issue here: www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/praktikes/panagia2.htm

  • @rickrun2821
    @rickrun2821 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    also dissapointed in you,look at the history of catholicism,all the murders,looks like your jumping out of one satanically deceptive church into another,just stick with christ and the bible dave,maybe you need to take a step back,and humble yourself again dave.

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Uhh, he's not looking at Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox ever went through the issues that led to the Reformation. Of course, speaking of which, Protestants were very good about killing each other in Europe-see Thirty Years war. Don't forget, Luther and Zwingli about went to war over the Eucharist. They loved burning each other at the stake (see Calvin, who burned people who didn't agree with his theology).

    • @tessa7413
      @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Rick, I'm not sure what "murders" you are referring to, but history is full of many people of all cultures committing crimes. We live in a fallen world, and even Christians often fail to live up to the requirements of the faith.
      But, if you are referring to the Inquisitions or the Crusades, then you should probably look into the real history of these events. What most people tend to believe about these events are mostly myth, started by the enlightenment era, and also the propaganda wars waged heavily against the Church by Protestants. Sadly these myths continue to be perpetuated to this day. You really have to wonder why everyone tends hates the Catholic Church - Satan is at war with her, and works to turn people away from her and against her.
      *BBC Timewatch - The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition*
      th-cam.com/video/qhlAqklH0do/w-d-xo.html
      *The Inquistions - Stefano Mazzeo*
      th-cam.com/video/k-BC6XrvVTw/w-d-xo.html
      *Thomas F. Madden - Catholic History: Dispelling the Myths*
      th-cam.com/video/H3PSqEY44JQ/w-d-xo.html
      *Thomas F. Madden, PhD - The Crusades, Then and Now*
      th-cam.com/video/pFt1ZRVqNOE/w-d-xo.html
      *Robert Spencer - The Crusades, Fact & Fiction*
      th-cam.com/video/TMGRGtiO9Ro/w-d-xo.html:
      And, on the "anti-Catholic" history of the American culture -
      *Catholics in America - Ryan Reeves*
      th-cam.com/video/7F7Tbo5LMek/w-d-xo.html
      *Anti-Catholicism and the American Identity - Dr. John Penheiro*
      th-cam.com/video/B94krh-Kpjo/w-d-xo.html
      And, a very good book written by a Protestant, is *"Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History" by Rodney Stark* Rodney Stark is a Protestant professor at Baylor University, and he has written several books on the history of Christianity. Through all his years researching and studying the history of Christianity, he learned that the Anti-Catholic claims, widely and wrongly accepted as "truth" were myths & lies, really just propaganda.
      *"Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History" - Rodney Stark*
      www.amazon.com/Bearing-False-Witness-Debunking-Anti-Catholic/dp/1599474999

    • @tessa7413
      @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Tim, the Church consists of saints and sinners, and very flawed people. Also the Church is at constant war with Satan, and he seeks to use people as instruments to attack from outside, as well as from within. It's a complete abhorrence that this happened at all, obviously some priests did not enter the priesthood for the right reasons, at aa time when there was laxity in the Church and the screening process, and they abused their positions of authority, were not faithful to their vows, failed to live up to the requirements of the faith, and sinned greatly by committing heinous crimes, and not everyone dealt with it as they should have.
      But, this was in actuality a small number of priests and their actions greatly wounded the Church and tarnished the reputation of even the good priests. The majority of priests are indeed good & faithful priests who are in it for the right reasons, and they now have to live with the ridicule, humiliation, suspicion and constant insults by haters like you, so it takes a great deal of courage to be a priest these days. The crimes are inexcusable no matter what, but to be more accurate, the vast majority of victims were post-pubescent males so it was more of a case of hebephilia & homosexuality rather than "pedephilia." Also, if you look at the statistics, it's more likely to happen in the general public, and in other institutions and organizations than in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately it's a worldwide problem, and it's even more of a problem in the Protestant world.
      Fortunately, since the scandal, the Catholic Church has made enormous efforts to prevent sexual abuse and safeguard minors, and has put in place policies which are unparalleled by any organization.
      It must be nice to be a rogue "church of 1" believer, where you can pretend to wash your hands of any evil done by others, and point the finger as the accuser!

    • @tessa7413
      @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Tim, did Jesus promise that everyone in His Church would be impeccable and sinless? No. He warned that there would be tares amongst the wheat, which He'd allow to grow side by side until He harvested, and sifted them in the end. Unfortunately, there have and always will be a few Judas' mixed in - Jesus Himself selected imperfect & flawed men to be His Apostles, which only demonstrates this. He did promise however that His Church would never be destroyed and it hasn't in all this time.
      Go try to find an absolutely perfect assembly of people - it's just not possible. Eventually every denomination that lives long enough is going to have to deal with their own scandals.
      Yes, there were many in the Church (as I've said) who did not deal with the problem the way they should have. I would like to think that if I was in their position, that I would have done better, but I really don't know. I think it's only human to be in denial, and try to avoid scandal by dealing by trying to quietly deal with problems internally... and this has and does happen in many, many other denominations (statistically it's always been a much larger problem within the Protestant world than in the Church, but since Protestantism is so very divided, you might occasionally hear about individual cases locally where they happen, but they aren't as likely to gain international attention, whereas the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church that exists all over the world, so it's going to make international headlines. Also, within very divided Protestantism, the problem is much harder to pinpoint and address). You also have to realize that, at the height of this scandal, when the abuse was going on, it was the common consensus within the professional psychological community that sexual abusers/deviants could be successfully rehabilitated, so this was the approach they took even though it was the wrong one. And, at the time, most of the family members involved really didn't want to make things public, because there was also stigma involved in being victims of sexual abuse. So the vast majority of cases came out decades later.
      The Church is a hospital for sinners, so this side of heaven, it will not be completely free from sinful people, and this unfortunately includes some members of clergy. Jesus Himself chose Judas to be amongst the ranks, and Jesus even commanded all His Jewish followers to obey the authority of the pharisees even though the pharisees were hypocrites and not living up to what they taught. Now His Church has teaching authority, and the hypocrisy and sinfulness of some of His ministers does not negate the teaching authority of the Church.
      If you really want to *objectively* judge the Church or any other organization, then find out what the Church or organization actually teaches & promotes, and then judge based on the members who are living up to those teachings. It's actually a fallacy to judge only by the members who fail to live up to those teachings.
      Analogy: would you judge a the efficacy of a medication by patients who do not take it according to the prescription and doctors orders, or do you judge the efficacy of a medication by the patients who do take the medication according to the prescription and doctors orders?
      So rather than judging the entire Church only by the members who fail to live up to the teachings and requirements of the faith, learn what the Church actually teaches, and rightly judge by the members who actually do faithfully follow those teachings and are living up to the requirements of the faith. You will find that the Church actually produces saints, when people faithfully live up to her teachings.

    • @tessa7413
      @tessa7413 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      tim spangler Tim, stop twisting my words, and taking what I said out of context. You are an accuser, and you bear false witness. Satan is the accuser and father of lies and deceit, it appears that you are working for him.
      What I said Tim, was that I like to think that if I was in that situation, that I would have done better in dealing with it - and given what we now know, of course I would have, and I'm sure all the people involved would have made better decisions in how they handled it as well if they knew then what they now know.

  • @dougwbenson
    @dougwbenson 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    th-cam.com/video/zRWlEzyMn9o/w-d-xo.html

  • @kennethblair3196
    @kennethblair3196 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    But I wouldn't count on having Mary, one small saintly being, answer any massive number of millions of Catholics and eastern orthodox people's prayers in a day or 100 years. The Father in heaven would have that ability because he is everywhere. It appears Jesus Christ would have this ability also because the Son is equal with the Father, although not completely, because he said the Father is greater than I.

  • @personofpeople7027
    @personofpeople7027 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    2. (This is) a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His slave Zakariya (Zachariah).
    3. When he called out his Lord (Allah) a call in secret,
    4. Saying: "My Lord! Indeed my bones have grown feeble, and grey hair has spread on my head, And I have never been unblest in my invocation to You, O my Lord!
    5. "And Verily! I fear my relatives after me, since my wife is barren. So give me from Yourself an heir,
    6. "Who shall inherit me, and inherit (also) the posterity of Ya'qub (Jacob) (inheritance of the religious knowledge and Prophethood, not the wealth, etc.). And make him, my Lord, one with whom You are Well-pleased!".
    7. (Allah said) "O Zakariya (Zachariah)! Verily, We give you the glad tidings of a son, His name will be Yahya (John). We have given that name to none before (him)."
    8. He said: "My Lord! How can I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I have reached the extreme old age."
    9. He said: "So (it will be). Your Lord says; It is easy for Me. Certainly I have created you before, when you had been nothing!"
    10. [Zakariya (Zachariah)] said: "My Lord! Appoint for me a sign." He said: "Your sign is that you shall not speak unto mankind for three nights, though having no bodily defect."
    11. Then he came out to his people from Al-Mihrab (a praying place or a private room, etc.), he told them by signs to glorify Allah's Praises in the morning and in the afternoon.
    12. (It was said to his son): "O Yahya (John)! Hold fast the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah)]." And We gave him wisdom while yet a child.
    13. And (made him) sympathetic to men as a mercy (or a grant) from Us, and pure from sins [i.e. Yahya (John)] and he was righteous,
    14. And dutiful towards his parents, and he was neither an arrogant nor disobedient (to Allah or to his parents).
    15. And Salamun (peace) be on him the day he was born, the day he dies, and the day he will be raised up to life (again)!
    16. And mention in the Book (the Qur'an, O Muhammad , the story of) Maryam (Mary), when she withdrew in seclusion from her family to a place facing east.
    17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our Ruh [angel Jibrael (Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects.
    18. She said: "Verily! I seek refuge with the Most Beneficent (Allah) from you, if you do fear Allah."
    19. (The angel) said: "I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son."
    20. She said: "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?"
    21. He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is easy for Me (Allah): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allah).' "
    22. So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place (i.e. Bethlehem valley about 4-6 miles from Jerusalem).
    23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date-palm. She said: "Would that I had died before this, and had been forgotten and out of sight!"
    24. Then [the babe 'Iesa (Jesus) or Jibrael (Gabriel)] cried unto her from below her, saying: "Grieve not! Your Lord has provided a water stream under you;
    25. "And shake the trunk of date-palm towards you, it will let fall fresh ripe-dates upon you."
    26. "So eat and drink and be glad, and if you see any human being, say: 'Verily! I have vowed a fast unto the Most Beneficent (Allah) so I shall not speak to any human being this day.'"
    27. Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).
    28. "O sister (i.e. the like) of Harun (Aaron) [not the brother of Musa (Moses), but he was another pious man at the time of Maryam (Mary)]! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."
    29. Then she pointed to him. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
    30. "He ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"
    31. "And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salat (prayer), and Zakat, as long as I live."
    32. "And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.
    33. "And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"
    34. Such is 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).
    35. It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is.
    36. ['Iesa (Jesus) said]: "And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path. (Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism which He did ordain for all of His Prophets)." [Tafsir At-Tabari]
    37. Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about 'Iesa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah] from the meeting of a great Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection, when they will be thrown in the blazing Fire).
    38. How clearly will they (polytheists and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) see and hear, the Day when they will appear before Us! But the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers) today are in plain error.
    39. And warn them (O Muhammad ) of the Day of grief and regrets, when the case has been decided, while (now) they are in a state of carelessness, and they believe not.
    40. Verily! We will inherit the earth and whatsoever is thereon. And to Us they all shall be returned,
    41. And mention in the Book (the Qur'an) Ibrahim (Abraham). Verily! He was a man of truth, a Prophet.
    42. When he said to his father: "O my father! Why do you worship that which hears not, sees not and cannot avail you in anything?
    43. "O my father! Verily! There has come to me of knowledge that which came not unto you. So follow me. I will guide you to a Straight Path.
    44. "O my father! Worship not Shaitan (Satan). Verily! Shaitan (Satan) has been a rebel against the Most Beneficent (Allah).
    45. "O my father! Verily! I fear lest a torment from the Most Beneficent (Allah) overtake you, so that you become a companion of Shaitan(Satan) (in the Hell-fire)." [Tafsir Al-Qurtubi]
    46. He (the father) said: "Do you reject my gods, O Ibrahim (Abraham)? If you stop not (this), I will indeed stone you. So get away from me safely before I punish you."
    47. Ibrahim (Abraham) said: "Peace be on you! I will ask Forgiveness of my Lord for you. Verily! He is unto me, Ever Most Gracious.
    48. "And I shall turn away from you and from those whom you invoke besides Allah. And I shall call on my Lord; and I hope that I shall not be unblest in my invocation to my Lord."
    49. So when he had turned away from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We gave him Ishaque (Isaac) and Ya'qub (Jacob), and each one of them We made a Prophet.
    50. And We gave them of Our Mercy (a good provision in plenty), and We granted them honour on the tongues (of all the nations, i.e everybody remembers them with a good praise).
    51. And mention in the Book (this Qur'an) Musa (Moses). Verily! He was chosen and he was a Messenger (and) a Prophet.
    52. And We called him from the right side of the Mount, and made him draw near to Us for a talk with him [Musa (Moses)].
    53. And We bestowed on him his brother Harun (Aaron), (also) a Prophet, out of Our Mercy.
    54. And mention in the Book (the Qur'an) Isma'il (Ishmael). Verily! He was true to what he promised, and he was a Messenger, (and) a Prophet.
    55. And he used to enjoin on his family and his people As-Salat (the prayers) and the Zakat, and his Lord was pleased with him.
    56. And mention in the Book (the Qur'an) Idris (Enoch).Verily! He was a man of truth, (and) a Prophet.
    57. And We raised him to a high station.
    58. Those were they unto whom Allah bestowed His Grace from among the Prophets, of the offspring of Adam, and of those whom We carried (in the ship) with Nuh (Noah), and of the offspring of Ibrahim (Abraham) and Israel and from among those whom We guided and chose. When the Verses of the Most Beneficent (Allah) were recited unto them, they fell down prostrating and weeping.
    www.noblequran.com/translation/

  • @solascriptura8249
    @solascriptura8249 7 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    David I hope you're not going Ecumenical! Eastern Orthodox is the twin sister of Roman Catholicism. Perpetual Virgin? Sorry she wasn't, scripture is clear she had other children. Venerate and worship are synonymous. Did you hear what he said, Mary and the others participated in salvation?? No Jesus Christ Alone Saved us, everyone else were INSTRUMENTS of Almighty God. David truly disappointed in you! Another one goes Ecumenical, just like Hank Hanegraff the supposed bible answer man. Ex Roman Catholics for JESUS CHRIST ONLY THE TRUE ROCK...Not Peter.

    • @KristiBee
      @KristiBee 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Speaking truth in love! Thank you!

    • @solascriptura8249
      @solascriptura8249 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Gin chan, Sola Scriptura unbiblical? Do you know of another book that is God breathed as per 2Timothy 3.16-17? We Born Again biblical Christians test everything with what God Almighty has already spoken.

    • @solascriptura8249
      @solascriptura8249 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Mike Ordo, Yeah I am the same guy! I don't deal with people who can't control their temper and go on rants. You do remember your last rant? Don't worry about my Salvation buddy, it doesn't depend on you or your church. SMH!

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Actually, Mary being perpetually virgin provides weight to the importance of Jesus. Second, you can find a typology of Mary in the Ark of the Covenant. What was contained in the Ark? The Rod, the Law, and the Bread of Life. And any who touched the Ark died 'cause what was contained therein was that important. Next, Joseph was a Righteous Jew. The term Righteous has a specific connotation in the Jewish community at the time. It meant he lived a solid, spirit-filled, Godly life. An angel of God spoke to him. I don't know about you, but if someone told me that my betrothed (engaged, not married) was carrying the Savior of the World, I would treat her with a little more dignity. Unless that her having Jesus was just another thing. Why can't she be ever-virgin? What's the problem with it?

    • @solascriptura8249
      @solascriptura8249 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Frank Herbert, That's cool that's your opinion not supported by Scripture. Biblical christians Love Mary of the bible, our sister in Christ, she's the most blessed woman to have ever lived and will meet her one day. Catholic Mary is making appearances all over the world, On top of a hill, on people's pancakes and cereal, on the side of walls, and many other locations. She's the "Queen of Heaven," Co Mediatrix, Without sin, and never died and was assumed bodily. A bunch of non sense not supported by scripture, Catholic Mary and Biblical Mary two different people.

  • @heavensbattle5171
    @heavensbattle5171 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Oh boy.. this got worse than I thought, as I listened to the end of the video.
    Deception.
    Man... Dave really??? Are you being serious brother?? Come on man, you really are breaking my heart, I really want to cry right now...
    You left the mormon church for this????
    I am not even gonna argue anymore, or point out anything else... I am just really going to pray for you brother.
    This is just a bummer.
    ='(

    • @sylviag3576
      @sylviag3576 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Heaven's Battle It is sad to see Dave jump from the frying pan, into the fire. I will pray with you.

  • @s.sflower
    @s.sflower 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Without Mary there wouldn't have been Jesus!? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Now that is seriously offensive... if Mary wouldn't have existed God would've simply just chose the next purist women who he have wanted to choose! Wow this is truly sad..... without JESUS we all would be nothing. Myself, Mary or anyone ! Wow .....

    • @desimarf1131
      @desimarf1131 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      No, she accepted to be mother of Jesus, so it means that she choose. She was raised in the temple. She is the new Eve, we Orthodox Christians know that she pray for us to her Son.

    • @zachoo5135
      @zachoo5135 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      She is the reason for our salvation.

    • @s.sflower
      @s.sflower 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@zachoo5135 how?

    • @zachoo5135
      @zachoo5135 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@s.sflower because she is mother of God.

    • @s.sflower
      @s.sflower 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@zachoo5135 God has a mother? Do you have biblical evidence?

  • @darthstemcell
    @darthstemcell 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    I believe in the virgin birth. but her other offspring where less and less talked about, to hide their identity. A Church cover up. Purely for their protection.Scripture is fairly clear,

    • @orthoglobus
      @orthoglobus 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Jesus' brothers and sisters were actually children of Joseph from his first marriage, however they were considered (as per the Law) as His brothers. If Virgin Mary had also other children, why did Jesus had to entrusted her to John and not to her children [John 19:26]?
      You may find much more biblical clues on this issue here: www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/praktikes/panagia2.htm

    • @OneDayCloserToHim
      @OneDayCloserToHim 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Hi Mortis, Actually, I don't think this matters regarding salvation, eternal life with Jesus, but is a quasi-basis for a valid basis to go beyond again and to add "add" to Mary other attributes, to justify vernation or whatever one wants to add. ,, I believe in a Biblical study as in studying anything, we need to limit our understanding to what is said, not what is not said, and not go beyond whatever we are doing.. to add our pet beliefs. I have seen the references for both sides of the argument about Jesus having brothers or stepbrothers. Some may base their conclusion on Jewish custom. One problem is, we never see, and only see Jesus' mother, among those in his family mentioned at His crucifixion. Although this is not conclusive to me, as anyone at the cross.. any male was taking a risk, and perhaps they were "standing off" .. Perhaps they were not. We cannot "add" them when scripture does not.
      *_We know Mary believed He was the Son of God_* . We know His brothers did not believe in Him, until after the resurrection.. That is known.
      We know John was there, "the disciple Jesus loved".. I just love that.. that depicts you and I too you know.. So since we know, John was in front of Him, he had faith that moved him, and His brothers were not.. Wouldn't it be natural for Jesus to place her in his care? Of course... If someone argues.. "Oh they were there, they were just "standing off"" .. well worse yet, I have adopted 2 children in my life, and I can tell you, if I was dying, no matter who was there.. I would give care of my mother to them. Now at this point, this is conjecture isn't it!!
      And that is the point. People add what is not written to weave a web of justification for so many things. I have talked to cult members for so many years.. and this pattern is sooooo familiar. So we know, this, I don't see His brothers/stepbrothers there.. so how could He do that? Would He? If He could? That is going beyond scripture.. no no no. We are not told "everything" in the Bible. It is not "exhaustive".. however, it is sufficient and God has told me all I need, to know Him, forever:
      25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
      26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
      27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
      Here is the real issue at the heart I believe. As stated, people build a web of deceit at times to their final "conclusions" they want to draw. It's almost like a web, put this here that "well hey, it doesn't say it isn't", "oh sure, if I look in context I can see it doesn't say it either... but I want this so I can ________" Fill in the blanks.
      Here is what we know and I will say, as this is what God *_has_* clearly stated.
      All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God",
      For there is none righteous, *_no not one_*.
      So.. no it doesn't "say" Mary there does it? Of course not. It is implicitly and directly stated she is included in all, of course.
      We know Mary treasured up things Jesus did in her heart.. I love that. I thnk she was quite a woman.. I am not going to say ONE SINGLE WORD, against My Lord and My God's mother.. wow.. God the Father entrusted her with the Word, become flesh.. Not that He wasn't always in control, Jesus said no one had authority over Him unless the Father let it be.
      The bottom line.. I am quite sure I will see Mary in heaven as she was saved by Jesus' precious blood on the cross.
      I need no one, and told I am forgiven , before the Father, and bid to come "boldly" to His throne, for grace and Mercy.. Jesus tore the veil, rent it in two.. This is the gospel.
      Jesus Christ crucified and the cross is the power of God unto salvation.. I am to have 0 other Gods, idols, before Him.. I am to ask Him in the Fathers name for everything, anything, and He is my sufficiency. He answers prayers, God, and I have a direct pipleline to Him.... oh I cover other believers prayers.. please.. you want to pray for me. . thank you.. is my heart.. if I may.. can I pray *_FOR_* you too.. Not to. no no no.. I am not ever ever ever to do that, as there is only one , that is singular, God.. He is jealous over me.... sings over me... is that awesome or what !! sheesh.... I am not to pray to the dead.. to answer anything, or ask anything of God.. in any manner whatsoever..
      Jesus is God, I am sealed by His Spirit, and in Him, I live and move.. and have my being.. God has given me all things and will never leave me nor fosake me.. NO NOT EVER.. It was a double negative in the text.. He is my shepherd.. He corrects, admonishes at times, disciplines and loves me.. and with Thomas, and this was what he literally said when He saw Jesus, touched Him, felt His wounds.. and this is my heart... and all you, or I or anyone needs as God.. He said in the KJV, "My Lord and My God".. literally He said,
      "The Lord of me and the God of me"
      Don't bother praying to a dead person. No matter how "relatively" good they are.. they are in the "none is righteous, no not one".. They if asleep in the Lord, gone to be with Him.. well I see no, 0 , not a one, Nada place in scripture I am to ask them, pray to them.. for anything... I think that is the real heresy..
      "Thou shall have NO other Gods before me"
      Jesus' blood has opened up a new way to the throne of God, and by His blood alone,, I am His.. forgiven, justified.. just as if I never sinned... and I stand alone by His grace and mercy, and it is about, this life, living with Him.. He is life.. He gives life .. He is the creator God and there is nothing now to keep you from Him.. but .. well afraid.. uncertain.. it's ok.... He is sooooooo good, and in almost a half century now.. failures.. sure... plenty,.. regrets.. ahhh.. can't wait 'til the day I can't leave them behind.... but His love is never ending.. His love is my strength!! Why in the world.. would I pray to Mary.. when He.. God Almighty.. says come!! Really..
      LoveInJesus

  • @80SBABYDRETV
    @80SBABYDRETV 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Even the elect shall be deceived smh!!

  • @Tsumebleraar
    @Tsumebleraar 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Mary was married to Joseph, that's the simple reason why she didn't stay a virgin.

    • @SLVBULL
      @SLVBULL 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Noordeman Ezekiel 44:2

  • @findev6330
    @findev6330 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    No way was she a virgin after giving birth, logic refutes.

    • @DaveBartosiewicz
      @DaveBartosiewicz  6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Not to me it doesn't.

    • @findev6330
      @findev6330 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dave Bartosiewicz Did Mary have a C-section?

  • @vestynensign2395
    @vestynensign2395 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    I do not believe that they were betrothed I believe that they were espouse does the King James Bible States

  • @heiscoming4447
    @heiscoming4447 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Now this heretic can point out the masonic symbols on a morman museum but cant see the pagan sun disc in the picture of "mary"/ semiramis. Smh

  • @born2-4jesusbianca8
    @born2-4jesusbianca8 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Dave, devil does not let you go. From Mormonism to orthodoxy is the same place. You should see the Sun shape on the Altar in church and the idols image of Mary,people, JEsus is still on the cross crucified. Watch the dome on the church top, the bee hive stile in masonery. That Represent the fertility of mother goddess that way looks like a pregnant woman that roof. I was very orthodoxy before I came to Christ and now I see that in orthodoxy they worship idols and Mary. The Bible doesn’t even say that she believed and she is saved, We cannot know where Mary is because the Bible does never speak about her work in Christ. I will stop watching you videous because is based on idols and Jeremiah told not to make idols. Jesus never spoke about liturgy and apostles never did one. Look for messianic Jews if you want to know the truth. They are the ones that believed and the true ones Jesus came for. God bless you. Hope to find the truth. Leave history, God does not make sense, don’t look for logic in Bible. Is not about logic is about faith when nothing makes sense.

  • @QuillonFrostbane
    @QuillonFrostbane 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    wait, what???!?!? .... how did Dave who has been woke to Mormonism then move towards Catholicism? It's just another cult. Dave .... please wake up again ... the Pope is the future anti-Christ and the Catholic church is the harlot.
    How can you jump out of the frying pan and land in the fire?

    • @DaveBartosiewicz
      @DaveBartosiewicz  6 ปีที่แล้ว

      I am not Roman Catholic. I am Eastern Orthodox. Big difference.

    • @SLVBULL
      @SLVBULL 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Your comment makes as much sense as Protestantism. Orthodoxy and Catholics are totally different.

  • @mycornerstonefaith
    @mycornerstonefaith 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Ohhh seriously?? Do you guys read the bible. Mary had at least 4 children mentioned in the bible. You are butchering the Word!

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      You might want to read up on where the Bible originated from.

  • @konstance7087
    @konstance7087 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Doctrines of devils. This priest is an outright liar. Wolf in sheeps clothing. What do you mean 'not looking at this without biblical evidence & to look into what priests/man says'. It doesn't matter what man says at all. It's only what God says that counts and what He wrote through the Holy Spirit ie the bible. Anything else is blasphemous and of the devil. The bible clearly says Mary didn't 'KNOW' Joseph until after the birth of her first born. 'Know' means she didnt have sex with him till after that. The bible also speaks of Jesus' mother, brothers and sisters waiting. And Jesus said 'who is my mother and brothers, but those who do the will of my Father. So it cant mean His followers. Why do you look to mans explanations instead of reading your bible. Get behind me satan!!

    • @frankherbert6476
      @frankherbert6476 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      "Why do you look to mans explanations instead of reading your bible." Where do you think your Bible came from? I'm pretty sure it didn't just fall from heaven.
      Ask yourself these questions:
      Why is my interpretation of the Bible correct?
      What right do I have to do doctrine and worship so differently from the disciples of the Apostles?
      Why did almost no one interpret the Bible the way the Reformers did prior to the Reformation?
      What did the disciples of the Apostles say about how they believed and worshiped?
      How did we get the Bible we have today? Why does my Bible have fewer books than the Orthodox Bible?
      Why is the high view of Scripture I hold as an Evangelical only barely reflected in my worship? Is there a church that truly saturates the worshiper in Scripture?
      Why are liturgical worship and episcopal government the norm for almost all Christians for 2,000 years?
      What is the Church? Does it have binding authority? Can it be located?

  • @unworthy_outcast
    @unworthy_outcast 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nice try.........Antichrist!