This is to say that a holy thing cannot become common (unholy). True. Is it unholy to have children within the context of a Biblical marriage? "The Ark cannot become a coffee table" notion is misapplication. I'm not saying anything against Perpetual Virginity, simply that sex within the confines of marriage does not make one unholy.
There is also the Old Testament prophesies about Christ, like Ezekiel 44 talking about the east gate of the sanctuary of the temple where "no man shall enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it". Sounds like this verse is referring to the Theotokos to me.
I was raised a Presbyterian then became Methodist. I have had to apologize profusely to the Most Holy, Ever Virgin Theotokos when I espoused Orthodoxy. May Jesus Christ have mercy on me because I should have know the truth.
All the reformers believed in the perpetural virgnity of Mary and this is a confession doctrine in reforms swiss churches and in the presbyterian churches who hold to the Second Helvetic Confession.
This is amazing Bojan. I have loved how you have been blasting out videos daily. The crazy part is so many of them are directly applicable to my life and are about something I have recently been dealing with. Thank you Bojan.
If it makes you feel better about the cousins thing, in the american south your cousins can absolutely be treated like your extended family as brothers and sisters.
I've read and listened to many discussions that presented scriptural and tradition-based arguments for the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, but this is the first time I've encountered a presentation that addresses why that belief is logical and important. Really nicely done. Thank you sir.
Looking back on my protestant upbringing and the very intentional campaign to demote Mary, i realize that we did this because we NEEDED Mary to be like everyone else because holiness is not valued in the same way the orthodox or the latins do. Now that I became orthodox, i can see how important holiness is and that extends to the Theotokos
This is a copy paste of an article on a blog called obitelminsk that helped me when I became a Christian and was weighing up the whole brothers argument: Who Were the “Brethren of the Lord”? Posted on November 6, 2017 | by Editor | SourceReading time: 4 minutes Q: Who were the “brethren of the Lord” (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Theotokos “Ever-Virgin”? A: The “brethren” of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon and Jude. We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the “son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these “brethren” (including “sisters”) must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is “adelphi” in the original Greek, which can only be translated as “brother” in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. The Greek word “adelphos” and “adelphi” are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as “brothers” or “brethren”. There could have been no “first blood” brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His ‘brothers’ great disrespect and harm if He had done this ! The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ’s mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary is “Ever-Virgin”. Further evidence from the Holy Scriptures that in the Hebrew tradition “brothers” and “sisters” are not necessarily siblings. Our Orthodox Tradition teaches us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joakhim and Anna, but at John 19:25 we read, “Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary magdala.” If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister? The first clue to our answer is that both women are named Mary. ! No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name! Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of “sister”. The second clue to our answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas in KJV), as the mother of Jesus’ “brothers”. The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. Therefore the so-called brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the “sister” of the Virgin Mary. Thus the Scriptures show that the “brothers” of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God. Seeing Him born as an infant in Bethlehem. Let all creation glorify Him!
A very good use of the comparison between the Arc of the Old Testament with the Theotokos, the Arc of the New Testament. One thing you didn't mention is that the Tradition of the Church is understood that Joseph was MUCH older than Mary, and is only mentioned during the first few years of Christ's life. He is no longer mentioned in Scripture when Christ grows up. He wasn't even at the wedding at Canaan. Then when on the Cross, Jesus instruts John to take her as his mother and took after her. If Joseph was still alive, then it would be him who'd look after her. The brothers of Jesus can be understood to be sons of Joseph from a previous marriage before he was widowed.
"If Joseph was still alive, then it would be him who'd look after her." And additionally, if the "brothers" of Jesus were Mary's actual children, it would be them who would look after her.
God forbid your Christian faith should be limited to "This verse says this and this verse says that". I mean, it's just the apostles and prophets of the first century we're talking about, right? Can't take their word seriously, right? Puh-lease.
One additional thing I just thought of: if Mary were not a perpetual virgin, and the brothers of Jesus were actually her children, that would imply that she had had children from two different fathers: Jesus, begotten of God the Father, and others begotten of Joseph. Now, in that hypothetical scenario, she would have technically had intercourse with only one man, but still, she would have had children from two different fathers. Remarriage is typically allowed if one's spouse dies, but of course, God the Father did not die. So, a rejection of the ever-virginity of Mary, it seems to me, dances on the edge of calling her an adulteress. And God forbid that any one of us be so bold as to slander the Most Holy Mother of God in so shameful a way.
I strongly doubt that you or anybody else can cite an example of a negative statement with "until" that does not imply that it will be done afterwards. "I will do X until Y" is ambiguous, but "I will NOT do X until Y" is not ambiguous at all.
There are several in the Bible of exactly what you ask for - this word until/eso being used when an event doesn't happen until a certain time and still doesn't happen after. A few examples: “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). “until your old age I am He.” (Isaiah 46:4) “…And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mat 28:20). “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (1 Cor 15:24-25) Depending on the translation the word translated as "until" can also be "unto" or "to", which should help you to grasp the true meaning of the word before our modern habit of applying it in the way many find it difficult not to assume it is meant in this verse.
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (same word, "eso") the day of her death. 2 Samuel 6 : 23 "even until/unto/to/eso your old age I am He.” Isaiah 46 : 4 "And behold, I am with you always, until/unto/to/eso the end of the age” Mat 28 : 20 "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until/eso he has put all his enemies under his feet.” 1 Cor 15 : 24-25
@@colmcille9669 Out of the 4 examples you provide, only one is negative and that one is "until the day of her death". I think you made my point. All 4 of your examples are completely different.
@ExatheistEngineer You only asked for one example and one example is enough to contradict your total rejection of the possibility of interpreting it in the manner of the early Church. The other examples help to clarify that the range of meaning of the word goes beyond the usually narrower habit of using "until".
@@colmcille9669 True, I did not anticipate "until death". But as I said, you basically made my point, there are no similar examples in the scriptures but of course you are free to disagree. If you indeed are claiming that "didn't do X until her death" is the same as "didn't do X until she bore her firstborn" implies the same, then thank you for making my point.
Correct Mariology precedes correct Christology. Any other interpretation of our most Holy Theotokos leads to one or more of half a dozen different heresies.
Great video Bojan! One question though. Is belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary a matter of salvation at the end of the day? I believe it is. I was listening to protestant arguments against it and was doing everything in my power to believe what they were saying to do also disprove her perpetual virginity as well. I was humbled to say the least. Not in a manner that was quick like ripping off a bandaid. Rather a gradual realization that i know nothing and God knows everything but He is patient and doesn't quicken to anger. I had the blessed mother of our Lord figured out and i was smarter than everyone else. Those passages in the bible truly revelaed themselves and opened my eyes to my mistakes. Theotokos showed her true benevolent love and guided me to the truth by revealing her true self to me. I am forever thankful for her and i am completely ashamed for my misunderstandings about her. All generations shall call her blessed almost doesnt seem like a sufficient was to glorify her. Maybe Panagia really is the narrow path we are supposed to take? She always points and leads us straight to Jesus. Proper theology leads to correct understanding of the sacraments which inturn helps us achieve theosis
_"Is belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary a matter of salvation at the end of the day?"_ Well, Jesus DID say while hanging on the cross, "It is accomplished... unless some jerk implies my mother ever slept with her lawful husband. Then none of this matters."
I want to preface this lengthy comment by saying that I do not dislike the author of this video, who I'll be writing to directly. This is not an attack meant to weaken the faith of him or of anyone else who reads this, instead I hope everyone here has a stronger faith after today! But I think our faith can be weakened by man-made teachings that have no biblical evidence, and I'm here to make the case that the perpetual virginity of Mary and her position as a second ark has no biblical evidence: Saying "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son." (Matthew 1:25) does not necessarily mean Joseph consummated his marriage with Mary is like saying "I didn't kill anyone 'til they sent me to 'Nam" doesn't imply this veteran killed anyone in Vietnam. You claim that there are other verses that support your interpretation, but I can't find a single example of the Bible implying one thing happened and then later showing it didn't happen. It's alright to not be a "chapter and verse" guy, but if these verses are so easy to find you could simply have them appear on the screen as you talk. By telling me to google it and then google not giving me any results you've only provided evidence that there are no such verses. You then claim that not saying Jesus's brothers were also sons of Mary leaves a possibility that they weren't, which is true, but God is not the author of confusion(1 Corinthians 14:33). If the perpetual Virginity of Mary is important, why isn't it ever mentioned explicitly? It would've only taken one sentence to clear up the confusion. You then state that God would not allow his mother to engage in intercourse with a man, but why not? In the intimacy of marriage, two people become one flesh in a beautiful reflection of the Church's relationship with God (Genesis 2:24). Sexual intimacy within marriage is a wonderful gift from God, there's nothing dirty about that, so there's no reason God wouldn't want it to happen. You even said that God wouldn't permit the ark to be used for "some completely secular, silly purpose" but comparing a beautiful gift of God's to something silly and secular is obviously incorrect. Now you do make a good point about things that are dedicated to God and cannot be redeemed, but there is no evidence that Mary was dedicated to God in a formal way. The best example I can find of a dedication would be taking the Nazirite vow, but a Nazirite vow didn't even require abstaining from intercourse! (Numbers 6:1-21) Claiming that Mary was dedicated in a way which requires abstaining from sex has no Biblical evidence and only causes confusion. Furthermore, you say that the Ark destroyed the pagan idols in the temple where it was housed, and you compare this to Jesus destroying idols as evidence for Mary being the second Ark. But Jesus destroyed the idols, not Mary! Sure if Mary was the second ark then you might attribute some of that to her, but God doesn't need an Ark to destroy idols, so Jesus's defeat of idolatry is not evidence for Mary being the second Ark. Then you claim that if Mary isn't the second Ark, then my relationship with God can only be spiritual and lacks any physical element, and that rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary means my turning to Christ is only a decision and that my baptism was a "dead ritual". But first of all, our relationship with God can easily have physical elements like my posture during prayer and acts of physical worship, second of all, if God is a spirit with no physical form (John 4:24) then there is clearly nothing wrong with not having a physical element, otherwise God would not be perfect. This shows that rituals don't need a physical element. But you also generalize too much about the Protestant rituals. I'm part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and we believe the teachings of John Calvin who believed that baptism is not just a symbol but a means of grace where God imparts blessings on the believer. In fact, the PCA practices infant baptism because we believe that baptism is not a public declaration of faith but rather a deeply spiritual ritual which does not depend on publicity or human understanding. You also say that our faith becomes just a decision, but the PCA believes in predestination, where our salvation is not just a decision we made because we are lost in sin. Only through the unearned grace of God can we realize his goodness, so while we freely choose God, God chooses us first. A life changing choice that is only possible with the help of the Holy Spirit is then not just another decision, it's an incredible act of grace that we should thank God for. To close, I'd like to return to the idea that God is not the author of confusion. Wouldn't a perfect God be perfect communicator? Wouldn't an all-knowing God know every way which his scripture could be misinterpreted? Why then would God inspire ambiguity on an important topic? I think there is only one answer--God didn't inspire any confusion because he wasn't ambiguous on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Matthew 1:25 is enough: "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." That verse is clear, the author of the confusion here is mankind. By inventing the perpetual virginity of Mary despite having no evidence that that was the case, we have decided to teach fiction like it is God's truth, and in doing so we have divided the Church. I ask you all to open your eyes, because while Mary was certainly blessed, in this video Jesus's work of saving souls and defeating idolatry was attributed to Mary being the second Ark. Exalting Mary in this way steals glory away from God. Psalm 115:1 says "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness." Elevating Mary in this way and giving her glory that belongs to God is dangerous! I believe it is nothing short of idolatry, but thankfully the author of this video, and most of you reading this comment, are all Christians. Through Jesus we are already saved, but idolatry is a sin, it pushes us further from God, it taints and weakens our ministry, and all of that in exchange for nothing. Because we don't need to believe in Mary, Romans 10:9-10 states, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So if you've read up to this point, please consider what I've said and put your faith in God alone.
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (same word, "eso") the day of her death. 2 Samuel 6 : 23 "even until/eso your old age I am He.” Isaiah 46 : 4 "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” Mat 28 : 20 "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until/eso he has put all his enemies under his feet.” 1 Cor 15 : 24-25
I’m not going to engage every point in your lengthy post but I’ll give a response to a couple things. Here’s a list of “until” verses: I Chronicles 28:20 Matthew 28:20 I Corinthians 15:25 1 Timothy 4:13 Mark 13:19 Matthew 1:25 Mark 12:36 Also, the early church taught Mary’s perpetual virginity and even Luther did as well. Modern Protestants break with the own tradition. Here’s a quote from Luther: “Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39).
This is a copy paste of an article on a blog called obitelminsk that helped me when I became a Christian and was weighing up the whole brothers argument: Who Were the “Brethren of the Lord”? Posted on November 6, 2017 | by Editor | SourceReading time: 4 minutes Q: Who were the “brethren of the Lord” (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Theotokos “Ever-Virgin”? A: The “brethren” of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon and Jude. We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the “son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these “brethren” (including “sisters”) must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is “adelphi” in the original Greek, which can only be translated as “brother” in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. The Greek word “adelphos” and “adelphi” are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as “brothers” or “brethren”. There could have been no “first blood” brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His ‘brothers’ great disrespect and harm if He had done this ! The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ’s mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary is “Ever-Virgin”. Further evidence from the Holy Scriptures that in the Hebrew tradition “brothers” and “sisters” are not necessarily siblings. Our Orthodox Tradition teaches us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joakhim and Anna, but at John 19:25 we read, “Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary magdala.” If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister? The first clue to our answer is that both women are named Mary. ! No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name! Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of “sister”. The second clue to our answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas in KJV), as the mother of Jesus’ “brothers”. The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. Therefore the so-called brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the “sister” of the Virgin Mary. Thus the Scriptures show that the “brothers” of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God. Seeing Him born as an infant in Bethlehem. Let all creation glorify Him!
Other than maybe some very traditional Lutherans, Protestants typically do not believe in the immaculate conception. That is a Roman Catholic doctrine that was dogmatized after the schism. Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception because their concept of Original Sin does not include inherited guilt.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the easiest and simplest Marian Doctrines to accept. There are plenty of men and women in history who have taken vows of chastity after having experiences with God or saints. If Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived, it would not be a surprise that she stayed a virgin throughout her whole life, even if there were no significant reasons other than a mere desire to maintain chastity. The idea that the literal Mother of God wasn't a perpetual virgin and *had* to have had relations with St. Joseph is rather weird, honestly.
“Once the Ark becomes the Ark, it can never be a coffee table.”
Why not
Touch it and see
@@xxrandmlinksxxbruh2419 I just enjoyed Bojan's quote, so I thought that I would repeat it! :)
This is to say that a holy thing cannot become common (unholy). True. Is it unholy to have children within the context of a Biblical marriage? "The Ark cannot become a coffee table" notion is misapplication. I'm not saying anything against Perpetual Virginity, simply that sex within the confines of marriage does not make one unholy.
There is also the Old Testament prophesies about Christ, like Ezekiel 44 talking about the east gate of the sanctuary of the temple where "no man shall enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it". Sounds like this verse is referring to the Theotokos to me.
I was raised a Presbyterian then became Methodist. I have had to apologize profusely to the Most Holy, Ever Virgin Theotokos when I espoused Orthodoxy.
May Jesus Christ have mercy on me because I should have know the truth.
All the reformers believed in the perpetural virgnity of Mary and this is a confession doctrine in reforms swiss churches and in the presbyterian churches who hold to the Second Helvetic Confession.
This is amazing Bojan. I have loved how you have been blasting out videos daily. The crazy part is so many of them are directly applicable to my life and are about something I have recently been dealing with. Thank you Bojan.
If it makes you feel better about the cousins thing, in the american south your cousins can absolutely be treated like your extended family as brothers and sisters.
I have known 2 Indian guys (south Asia) who both call their cousins 'brothers' and they have excellent English.
Most Pure and Holy Theotokos Pray for us!!! 🙏🏼 ☦️
I've read and listened to many discussions that presented scriptural and tradition-based arguments for the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, but this is the first time I've encountered a presentation that addresses why that belief is logical and important. Really nicely done. Thank you sir.
Great point about dead rituals Bojan
Looking back on my protestant upbringing and the very intentional campaign to demote Mary, i realize that we did this because we NEEDED Mary to be like everyone else because holiness is not valued in the same way the orthodox or the latins do. Now that I became orthodox, i can see how important holiness is and that extends to the Theotokos
I really like the way how you pronounce "however"! 🙂
This is a copy paste of an article on a blog called obitelminsk that helped me when I became a Christian and was weighing up the whole brothers argument:
Who Were the “Brethren of the Lord”?
Posted on November 6, 2017 | by Editor | SourceReading time: 4 minutes
Q: Who were the “brethren of the Lord” (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Theotokos “Ever-Virgin”?
A: The “brethren” of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon and Jude.
We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the “son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these “brethren” (including “sisters”) must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is “adelphi” in the original Greek, which can only be translated as “brother” in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. The Greek word “adelphos” and “adelphi” are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as “brothers” or “brethren”.
There could have been no “first blood” brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His ‘brothers’ great disrespect and harm if He had done this ! The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ’s mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary is “Ever-Virgin”.
Further evidence from the Holy Scriptures that in the Hebrew tradition “brothers” and “sisters” are not necessarily siblings. Our Orthodox Tradition teaches us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joakhim and Anna, but at John 19:25 we read, “Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary magdala.” If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister? The first clue to our answer is that both women are named Mary. ! No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name! Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of “sister”. The second clue to our answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas in KJV), as the mother of Jesus’ “brothers”. The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. Therefore the so-called brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the “sister” of the Virgin Mary.
Thus the Scriptures show that the “brothers” of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God.
Seeing Him born as an infant in Bethlehem. Let all creation glorify Him!
A very good use of the comparison between the Arc of the Old Testament with the Theotokos, the Arc of the New Testament.
One thing you didn't mention is that the Tradition of the Church is understood that Joseph was MUCH older than Mary, and is only mentioned during the first few years of Christ's life.
He is no longer mentioned in Scripture when Christ grows up. He wasn't even at the wedding at Canaan.
Then when on the Cross, Jesus instruts John to take her as his mother and took after her. If Joseph was still alive, then it would be him who'd look after her.
The brothers of Jesus can be understood to be sons of Joseph from a previous marriage before he was widowed.
Catholics traditionally believe Joseph was a perpetual virgin too
"If Joseph was still alive, then it would be him who'd look after her."
And additionally, if the "brothers" of Jesus were Mary's actual children, it would be them who would look after her.
God forbid your Christian faith should be limited to "This verse says this and this verse says that". I mean, it's just the apostles and prophets of the first century we're talking about, right? Can't take their word seriously, right? Puh-lease.
One additional thing I just thought of: if Mary were not a perpetual virgin, and the brothers of Jesus were actually her children, that would imply that she had had children from two different fathers: Jesus, begotten of God the Father, and others begotten of Joseph. Now, in that hypothetical scenario, she would have technically had intercourse with only one man, but still, she would have had children from two different fathers. Remarriage is typically allowed if one's spouse dies, but of course, God the Father did not die. So, a rejection of the ever-virginity of Mary, it seems to me, dances on the edge of calling her an adulteress. And God forbid that any one of us be so bold as to slander the Most Holy Mother of God in so shameful a way.
I strongly doubt that you or anybody else can cite an example of a negative statement with "until" that does not imply that it will be done afterwards.
"I will do X until Y" is ambiguous, but "I will NOT do X until Y" is not ambiguous at all.
There are several in the Bible of exactly what you ask for - this word until/eso being used when an event doesn't happen until a certain time and still doesn't happen after. A few examples:
“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23).
“until your old age I am He.” (Isaiah 46:4)
“…And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mat 28:20).
“Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (1 Cor 15:24-25)
Depending on the translation the word translated as "until" can also be "unto" or "to", which should help you to grasp the true meaning of the word before our modern habit of applying it in the way many find it difficult not to assume it is meant in this verse.
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (same word, "eso") the day of her death.
2 Samuel 6 : 23
"even until/unto/to/eso your old age I am He.”
Isaiah 46 : 4
"And behold, I am with you always, until/unto/to/eso the end of the age”
Mat 28 : 20
"Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until/eso he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
1 Cor 15 : 24-25
@@colmcille9669 Out of the 4 examples you provide, only one is negative and that one is "until the day of her death".
I think you made my point. All 4 of your examples are completely different.
@ExatheistEngineer You only asked for one example and one example is enough to contradict your total rejection of the possibility of interpreting it in the manner of the early Church.
The other examples help to clarify that the range of meaning of the word goes beyond the usually narrower habit of using "until".
@@colmcille9669
True, I did not anticipate "until death".
But as I said, you basically made my point, there are no similar examples in the scriptures but of course you are free to disagree.
If you indeed are claiming that "didn't do X until her death" is the same as "didn't do X until she bore her firstborn" implies the same, then thank you for making my point.
Bojan what is your thought's on Saint Francis of Assisi
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us
Holiest Heart of Jesus,
have mercy on us
Correct Mariology precedes correct Christology. Any other interpretation of our most Holy Theotokos leads to one or more of half a dozen different heresies.
Great video Bojan! One question though. Is belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary a matter of salvation at the end of the day? I believe it is. I was listening to protestant arguments against it and was doing everything in my power to believe what they were saying to do also disprove her perpetual virginity as well.
I was humbled to say the least. Not in a manner that was quick like ripping off a bandaid. Rather a gradual realization that i know nothing and God knows everything but He is patient and doesn't quicken to anger. I had the blessed mother of our Lord figured out and i was smarter than everyone else. Those passages in the bible truly revelaed themselves and opened my eyes to my mistakes. Theotokos showed her true benevolent love and guided me to the truth by revealing her true self to me. I am forever thankful for her and i am completely ashamed for my misunderstandings about her. All generations shall call her blessed almost doesnt seem like a sufficient was to glorify her. Maybe Panagia really is the narrow path we are supposed to take? She always points and leads us straight to Jesus. Proper theology leads to correct understanding of the sacraments which inturn helps us achieve theosis
_"Is belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary a matter of salvation at the end of the day?"_
Well, Jesus DID say while hanging on the cross, "It is accomplished... unless some jerk implies my mother ever slept with her lawful husband. Then none of this matters."
Are you Norsk?
Serb
I want to preface this lengthy comment by saying that I do not dislike the author of this video, who I'll be writing to directly. This is not an attack meant to weaken the faith of him or of anyone else who reads this, instead I hope everyone here has a stronger faith after today! But I think our faith can be weakened by man-made teachings that have no biblical evidence, and I'm here to make the case that the perpetual virginity of Mary and her position as a second ark has no biblical evidence:
Saying "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son." (Matthew 1:25) does not necessarily mean Joseph consummated his marriage with Mary is like saying "I didn't kill anyone 'til they sent me to 'Nam" doesn't imply this veteran killed anyone in Vietnam. You claim that there are other verses that support your interpretation, but I can't find a single example of the Bible implying one thing happened and then later showing it didn't happen. It's alright to not be a "chapter and verse" guy, but if these verses are so easy to find you could simply have them appear on the screen as you talk. By telling me to google it and then google not giving me any results you've only provided evidence that there are no such verses.
You then claim that not saying Jesus's brothers were also sons of Mary leaves a possibility that they weren't, which is true, but God is not the author of confusion(1 Corinthians 14:33). If the perpetual Virginity of Mary is important, why isn't it ever mentioned explicitly? It would've only taken one sentence to clear up the confusion.
You then state that God would not allow his mother to engage in intercourse with a man, but why not? In the intimacy of marriage, two people become one flesh in a beautiful reflection of the Church's relationship with God (Genesis 2:24). Sexual intimacy within marriage is a wonderful gift from God, there's nothing dirty about that, so there's no reason God wouldn't want it to happen. You even said that God wouldn't permit the ark to be used for "some completely secular, silly purpose" but comparing a beautiful gift of God's to something silly and secular is obviously incorrect.
Now you do make a good point about things that are dedicated to God and cannot be redeemed, but there is no evidence that Mary was dedicated to God in a formal way. The best example I can find of a dedication would be taking the Nazirite vow, but a Nazirite vow didn't even require abstaining from intercourse! (Numbers 6:1-21) Claiming that Mary was dedicated in a way which requires abstaining from sex has no Biblical evidence and only causes confusion. Furthermore, you say that the Ark destroyed the pagan idols in the temple where it was housed, and you compare this to Jesus destroying idols as evidence for Mary being the second Ark. But Jesus destroyed the idols, not Mary! Sure if Mary was the second ark then you might attribute some of that to her, but God doesn't need an Ark to destroy idols, so Jesus's defeat of idolatry is not evidence for Mary being the second Ark.
Then you claim that if Mary isn't the second Ark, then my relationship with God can only be spiritual and lacks any physical element, and that rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary means my turning to Christ is only a decision and that my baptism was a "dead ritual". But first of all, our relationship with God can easily have physical elements like my posture during prayer and acts of physical worship, second of all, if God is a spirit with no physical form (John 4:24) then there is clearly nothing wrong with not having a physical element, otherwise God would not be perfect. This shows that rituals don't need a physical element.
But you also generalize too much about the Protestant rituals. I'm part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and we believe the teachings of John Calvin who believed that baptism is not just a symbol but a means of grace where God imparts blessings on the believer. In fact, the PCA practices infant baptism because we believe that baptism is not a public declaration of faith but rather a deeply spiritual ritual which does not depend on publicity or human understanding. You also say that our faith becomes just a decision, but the PCA believes in predestination, where our salvation is not just a decision we made because we are lost in sin. Only through the unearned grace of God can we realize his goodness, so while we freely choose God, God chooses us first. A life changing choice that is only possible with the help of the Holy Spirit is then not just another decision, it's an incredible act of grace that we should thank God for.
To close, I'd like to return to the idea that God is not the author of confusion. Wouldn't a perfect God be perfect communicator? Wouldn't an all-knowing God know every way which his scripture could be misinterpreted? Why then would God inspire ambiguity on an important topic? I think there is only one answer--God didn't inspire any confusion because he wasn't ambiguous on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Matthew 1:25 is enough: "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." That verse is clear, the author of the confusion here is mankind. By inventing the perpetual virginity of Mary despite having no evidence that that was the case, we have decided to teach fiction like it is God's truth, and in doing so we have divided the Church. I ask you all to open your eyes, because while Mary was certainly blessed, in this video Jesus's work of saving souls and defeating idolatry was attributed to Mary being the second Ark. Exalting Mary in this way steals glory away from God. Psalm 115:1 says "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness." Elevating Mary in this way and giving her glory that belongs to God is dangerous! I believe it is nothing short of idolatry, but thankfully the author of this video, and most of you reading this comment, are all Christians. Through Jesus we are already saved, but idolatry is a sin, it pushes us further from God, it taints and weakens our ministry, and all of that in exchange for nothing. Because we don't need to believe in Mary, Romans 10:9-10 states, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So if you've read up to this point, please consider what I've said and put your faith in God alone.
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (same word, "eso") the day of her death.
2 Samuel 6 : 23
"even until/eso your old age I am He.”
Isaiah 46 : 4
"And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age”
Mat 28 : 20
"Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until/eso he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
1 Cor 15 : 24-25
I’m not going to engage every point in your lengthy post but I’ll give a response to a couple things.
Here’s a list of “until” verses:
I Chronicles 28:20
Matthew 28:20
I Corinthians 15:25
1 Timothy 4:13
Mark 13:19
Matthew 1:25
Mark 12:36
Also, the early church taught Mary’s perpetual virginity and even Luther did as well. Modern Protestants break with the own tradition. Here’s a quote from Luther:
“Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39).
This is a copy paste of an article on a blog called obitelminsk that helped me when I became a Christian and was weighing up the whole brothers argument:
Who Were the “Brethren of the Lord”?
Posted on November 6, 2017 | by Editor | SourceReading time: 4 minutes
Q: Who were the “brethren of the Lord” (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Theotokos “Ever-Virgin”?
A: The “brethren” of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon and Jude.
We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the “son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these “brethren” (including “sisters”) must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is “adelphi” in the original Greek, which can only be translated as “brother” in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. The Greek word “adelphos” and “adelphi” are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as “brothers” or “brethren”.
There could have been no “first blood” brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His ‘brothers’ great disrespect and harm if He had done this ! The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ’s mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary is “Ever-Virgin”.
Further evidence from the Holy Scriptures that in the Hebrew tradition “brothers” and “sisters” are not necessarily siblings. Our Orthodox Tradition teaches us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joakhim and Anna, but at John 19:25 we read, “Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary magdala.” If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister? The first clue to our answer is that both women are named Mary. ! No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name! Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of “sister”. The second clue to our answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas in KJV), as the mother of Jesus’ “brothers”. The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. Therefore the so-called brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the “sister” of the Virgin Mary.
Thus the Scriptures show that the “brothers” of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God.
Seeing Him born as an infant in Bethlehem. Let all creation glorify Him!
Protestants will believe in immaculate conception but can't believe she remained a virgin.. weird..
That’s because many of them think the Immaculate Conception refers to Jesus
Other than maybe some very traditional Lutherans, Protestants typically do not believe in the immaculate conception. That is a Roman Catholic doctrine that was dogmatized after the schism. Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception because their concept of Original Sin does not include inherited guilt.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the easiest and simplest Marian Doctrines to accept. There are plenty of men and women in history who have taken vows of chastity after having experiences with God or saints. If Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived, it would not be a surprise that she stayed a virgin throughout her whole life, even if there were no significant reasons other than a mere desire to maintain chastity.
The idea that the literal Mother of God wasn't a perpetual virgin and *had* to have had relations with St. Joseph is rather weird, honestly.