Hi there. I've been 'agnostic' for about 40 years. My family went to a 'mainstream' Christian church when I was a child, but my family weren't particularly 'devout', and about the age of 10 my faith just started evaporating & fell away. However, two months ago I started having a major 'spiritual awakening', and started praying again. I also bought myself a Bible (KJV) & started reading it, and realised it's a lot more profound than I realised when I was a child. I started thirsting for more knowledge and understanding, and came across this channel in my searches. I have watched SO much on this channel, and have gained SO much understanding (particularly your videos on The Trinity, which I have watched over & over again, until I think I really DO understand it - thank you SO much). I have also started going to my local 'Church Of England' / 'Anglican' church , and it's been BEAUTIFUL for me (on my second visit, they even asked me to do a Bible reading, which I was delighted to do). It's a lovely church & lovely congregation, though I'm saddened that this beautiful Victorian era church built for hundreds of people only gets an attendance of about 12 - 15 people on a Sunday morning. I feel I'm in the 'RIGHT' church, but I still have so many questions about The Bible, and after the services it's difficult to pin anybody down to discuss the questions I have as a result of my Bible study. It's NOT a fault of the people. It's just a fault of this church struggling to keep going & keep it's doors open. I really wish there was somebody here like you, that could sacrifice the time to help me come to the understanding that I wish. Any advice would be appreciated.
Such very happy news! Praise God, for He's called you to Him. I recommend that you start by not taking on a Protestant or Catholic bias, but read the Scriptures (pray pray pray) and read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. They were taught directly by the Apostles. You will learn what the Apostles passed on (which is what is called 'tradition' in how the Church worshiped and what it believed. It is important to ground yourself in this, as it helps you understand the Bible. Then find a Church leader to help you understand it more fully. But don't immediately go the Protestant traditionalist points of view. The true Church has been around since Pentecost, and existed for over 1500 years before Protestantism even came into the picture. But most importantly, seek God and His guidance.
Hello Shnobo. Thank you for your reply. The first major question I have relates to understanding that The Bible is the COMPLETE understanding of the path to salvation through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Though the heart may be 'deceitful', I truly 'feel' (& through prayer) that (despite only having read the 4 gospels and the books of Genesis and Exodus so far - I am continuing reading) that God, through The Bible, has told us EVERYTHING we need to know. I am also aware that there are many false churches (Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists etc) who believe that The Bible is 'incomplete' and that further 'prophets' are to come afterwards. In my limited reading of The Bible so far, I have only come across one passage (Luke 16: 16) that that presents a case that God's word is COMPLETE (and there shall be no prophets after John - if my understanding of this is correct ?), yet I know that the false churches will dispute the 'interpretation' of that verse. Can you give me any additional CONFIRMATION that NO further 'revelation' is necessary after The Bible ?
I'm GREATLY enjoying The Mark Series Mike! I've started going through them a SECOND time... This time with my wife & daughter. You've made me see things, in the Gospel of Mark, that I hadn't noticed before.
The fact that Jesus's own family did not believe in Him gives me so much hope. I am so thankful this was included in Scripture. I've always felt like failure in my family because many of them have little interest in living for Christ. Maybe it's not all my fault. (I'm sure some, but at least not completely.)
I'm a catholic and I'm ashamed of my church for Mary's dogmas. Obviously Jesus had brothers. Not only that's what the Bible clearly teavhes but also if Mary and Joseph did not have multiple children, they would be considered a cursed family. Throughout the old testament we see that children are blessings and that wife and husband are meant to have sex and have children, this is God's first command. It wasn't until Catholic church went through it's own sexual revolution and withdrawn from anything sexual in nature that it concluded that priests ought to not marry and that Mary obviously never had sex too. And now even though we grew so much smarter, we can never go back and change it. The reason why we catholics ended up with a false dogma, is because we have dogmatised ourselves into a corner. If a Pope or any council ever tried to reboot Mary's cult they would've destroyed the church or at the very least split it in two. Church is much more interested in keeping their unity than in fixing wrong teachings. Nobody will ever go there, we are forced to uphold this ridiculous heresy forever. For that, I'm sorry protestant brothers. Fortunately, it's mot really an issue of salvation. I don't think belief in Mary's virginity can destroy God's grace. Many catholics like myself turn our backs on absurds of our church's theology and we try to save as many brothers as possible, teaching them you can only be saved by grace, through faith, outside of any works. Peace!
You are not Catholic. To be Catholic you have to accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. Your pride puts you above the Holy Spirit and that's a very unhealthy place to be.
@@alephnaught8343 Not sure what a papist is. But is English your first language? I never said that Catholics have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I stated what was required to be Catholic.
I wonder why Christ gave his mother to St John on the cross. In 1st century Judaism, you think one of Mary's other kids would have stepped up. Hold on Mary's only child was on the cross and God gave the disciple he loved a Mother. Christ was born through Mary and we as Catholics find Christ in and through her. Hail Mary Full of Grace...
Very glad I watched this. I'm one of those people who scrutinizes *everything* it seems. Like so many of the promises of the Lord in the OT. For decades my mind has posited, "yeah, but He was talking to Israel and not ME." ha ha It can get maddening, man, analyzing every single detail. It's contributed to a great amount of doubt, and I do mean *great*, in my life as to where I stand with Him and which promises are indeed for each of us individually and which are meant for Israel. Your videos are a huge help, Mike.
Keep in mind that the "nations" and "peoples" are also mentioned frequently by the prophets, whether for good or ill (depending on their own faithfulness to justice and righteousness, as well as whether they blessed or cursed Israel). That would include you, as you are a person among "the nations." Also remember this: the role Israel plays in history is to bring about God's blessings upon all the families of the earth (Gen 12:1-3; Rom 3, 11). Even though God dispersed and disinherited the nations at Babel (Gen 11) and created Israel through Abraham as his own possession (Gen 12, 15), he always remained nearby to be found by any who would seek after him, and always planned to call them back home to himself through Jesus the Messiah (Isa 2; Jer 31; Acts 17:16-34; Rev 4-5).
Accepting that Mary had more children, which implies that she did not remain a virgin for the rest of her life, does not seem to represent a problem for anyone but Catholics. They give too much importance to the fact that Mary was a virgin, and the fact of acknowledging that she did not stay that way seems to detract from her sanctity, in the eyes of Catholics. The fact that Mary was the woman chosen by God to come Himself to Earth as a man to save us shows how holy she was here, and even if she had more children and stopped being a virgin it does not change this at all. Sadly the Catholic Church twisted the whole issue with her to the point that they worship her and give her a place even above God himself to fall into idolatry.
It’s not necessary that they care about the virginity itself, but that the Roman Catholic Church might be wrong about this issue, which would cause its doctrine of infallibility to crumble.
Exactly there dug themselves into a hole. The more internet becomes available the more people can study and look at scholorship and see opinions Not only that Francis. Is showing the problem with there doctrines
@@r.a.panimefan2109only issue is you cannot prove Mary had other children from Bible alone. The brothers of Jesus can be - Mary and Joseph’s children - Joseph’s children from previous marriage - Close family members. Ie. Cousins These are all possibilities and you can’t prove nature of their relationship from Bible alone. You can certainly make assumptions and pretend you are right.
@walkingtherange5680 yes u can. The plane reading says so. U have to read theology into text to suggest cousins. Also to say know is oft a euphemism of intercourse. Joeseph did know mary till after christ was born. What else does that mean. It says it was brothers and sisters. There are actually some catholic scholars that admit it. So just stop lol u can glean all the info nessesary
@@r.a.panimefan2109 I said it’s a possibility. If you are going to settle on one definition, you have to rule out the other possibilities first. The Greek word used to described brethren can also be used to describe people of the same family. In Genesis 13:8-13 Abraham and Lot are described as brethren even though they have an uncle and nephew relationship. Same Greek word Adelphoi is used. So if you read brethren of Jesus, how do you conclude they are Mary’s children even though there are other possibilities that are equally plausible? I’m not saying you are wrong, you just haven’t proven your case.
I follow evidence. I appreciate that you do too and you give it. Evidence is why I reject Catholicism. I believe the gospel. I don’t believe their institutional teachings.
Are you aware of the Marcion controversy with the Gospels? I also am more rational but am Christian. The Gospels likely were not known until the 2nd century, No church fathers mention them, until Irenaeus. That's really late.
I totally agree, Pastor Mike. The internet is indeed, the modern synagogue. It’s probably the best way in my opinion, to share the truth. Whether it is video, or typed out where anyone can watch/read, it’s possible to impact innumerable lives even long after you’re gone. These are times where all should be so bold to use this avenue to it’s fullest!
Not to mention. Any can do a internet search on greek If something like a tradition doesn't feel right. Greek and scholorship We live I. A time when it's easy to learn and spread new thought.
Maybe the author of Genesis described the demarcation of creation epochs this way because his readers already believed that the new day began at sundown? Or maybe it’s a coincidence and Genesis’ point is to draw the reader to the Hebrew etymology of _erev_ as chaos and _boker_ as order?
Thank you for the sober reminder. Genesis is regarded as open to any interpretation as long as such interpretation is in line with the secular world. However, as you have rightly stated, Genesis would be taken as scripture that explains the need for Christ. Without this foundation for the Gospel, all sorts of heresies can be generated without noticing the glaring contradiction between the start of God's interaction with man, and the sound of the last trumpet.
@@l-cornelius-dol 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, and for training in righteousness.” The “author” of Genesis is God, though the one writing His words was human. Something to consider!
@@ZombieDelicacy : Of course, and I completely agree. But the human author, whom God works through in cooperation not by means of robotic control, exerts their influence as well. I was only pointing out that God is often doing something much deeper in his revelation, via Hebrew, than might seem obvious to the modern reader in English. For example, the core meaning of _Yom_ which is rendered as "day" in Genesis 1, is simply "a finite period of time" -- do a word study on the _Hebrew_ word (easy with a Strong's Concordance online) and you'll be amazed how often it is translated as "year", "years", "time", many days, and other variants like that. In fact, the same word in the same immediate context is used in Genesis 2, and there it incontestably refers to all of the creation "days" of Genesis 1. Something else to consider. 🙂
Here is how we know Mary had children of her own: The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching. When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 The same word for brothers in Matthew 13:55 is the same word used for brothers of Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:18 There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. Never used for the brothers of Jesus.
itisnow if I’m not mistaken that tradition that Joseph had other children before he married Mary has no evidence for it. Scholars reject it. How could David’s parents take a vow of chastity when David had brothers?
@@Justas399 After his parents had other children obviously! But the parents couldn't keep it and David the last child was born. The community teased David all his life for being illegitimate which is why he said in sin did my mother conceive me. That had nothing to do with original sin as Jews don't believe in original sin. I'm just saying that's what Jews think. Ezekiel 18 v 20. "The soul who sins it shall die. The son will not share the guilt of the father." What govt executes a serial killer and then also kills a child? The orthodox church has never believed in inherited guilt only that we inherit a sin nature. Protestants inherited faulty doctrine from the RCC. Also if protestants hate tradition then they should never call the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as these gospels have no name. They should call them A, B, C and D. Also please use just the bible to come up with Trinity. I guarantee 100% you will fail. Protestants are dishonest!
itisnow if you don’t believe we “inherited a sin nature “ then what should I make of this?Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned- - Romans 5:12 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. - Romans 5:19
itisnow how do you know what happens to babies who die? It is true we are not guilty of the specific sin of Adam but we are all fallen from birth because of his sin. Thus the doctrine of original sin.
itisnow Mary was a virgin before Christ was born but not after. Matthew 13:55-56 proves she had children of her own. The trinity doctrine is supported by Genesis 1:1-3, 27, John 1:1,14 and Acts 5:3-4
Pastor Mike, o so enjoy your teaching. What makes it so strong is your reliance on scriptura. You draw succinct nexus lines to uphold doctrine like few others. God bless you and your ministry.
Hey Larry, Mike wanders from the Scriptures a lot. He claims to be a "sola scriptura" guy, but Mike adds SO MUCH to the Bible that is not found there. Just a word of advice. Read the Bible for yourself, and see if it always agrees with what Mike claims that it says. Mike gets a lot correct, but he also makes up a bunch of stuff. Mike seems like a nice guy, so nothing against Mike, but the facts are the facts: Mike adds his own false teachings to the Bible.
@@HowToBeChristian - You are correct. And I have caught some errors in his theology. But he's developed a following that believe he is infallible. As a human, the odds are that some of what he presents is incorrect. It's up to the followers to study and read the Bible and to have a foundation in truth in order to catch these. Not follow willy-nilly. Even Paul wrote how some said they were of Paul, others of Peter etc... and how wrong this was. We are of Christ! The following "I am of Mike Winger" has developed, and that is never a good thing. I like him a lot, believe he is very sincere. But I check out what he says because he is not, as I said before, infallible. And his teachings are not 100% correct.
@@rafaelcarbone1387 Glad to hear that you caught on to Mike's false teachings as well! And yes, he definitely has a following of people who blindly believe him; hopefully they'll learn to fact check Mr. Winger on his false teachings as well.
U people who responded to me sound like u know a lot more than Mike, but o ly appear to make vague insinuations about him with nothing substantial.Are you plants?
@@larrysergent5478 Hey Larry, I would never say we "know a lot more than Mike". What we know is that what Mike is saying is false in many situations. That is why it is best to fact check Mike on his teachings, because he gets some stuff correct, and some stuff incorrect. Feel free to check out our channel for more information; Mike recently tried to cover up facts we shared about him.
I was raised in a denomination that is very anti-Catholic and rejects the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet I heard them also make the "Jesus' brothers were Joseph's sons from another marriage" claim.
Love your work. New subscriber. Just a thought here - just because pottery newer than a town, is discovered IN that town, doesn't change the history OF the town. An extreme example is discovering a pencil at a dig site in Egypt and trying to say Egypt was founded in the 1500s. I take many historical dating methods with a grain of salt (or salt block in cases) since most times folks want to stamp a date on something they're trying to prove an existing agenda.
“Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor. If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up.” Ecclesiastes 4:9-10
Wow, I appreciate the encouragement to preach in the digital synagogues. I think there's something to that, although I do want also to promote in-person engagement because something gets lost without that complete human interaction. Keep it up, brother.
9:45 Yeah, God is qualified to teach about the religion He invented...Such a strange reality that at any moment Jesus would have been barred from teaching at the synagogue...
You mentioned that within our culture it is the norm for children to to deviate from the career path of their parents. I'd like to show where that former tradition still lives and is commonly understood to be this way. I'm now a Tradesman, many of my friends are also Tradesman, many of them also had fathers who were Tradesmen. In the Trades at least, it is still very common for children to be taught their father's trade and grow up doing that. My son is 10 and I take him to all my side jobs so he can learn and already have a means to support himself even before he graduates High School Of my friends, the most skilled ones all grew up working alongside their fathers in their respective trades since they were in Junior High or Highschool.
I've heard ot said that faith isnt believing God can but believing he will. I disagree. I believe faith is believing that whether he does or does not he is right. And you trust his answer. Even when you cant understand it.
I think there are two good arguments that Mary was in fact a perpetual virgin. The first argument is that the Scriptural support for Mary being the mother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon simply isn't in the text. Does the Bible ever say that Mary and Joseph had intimate relations after the birth of Jesus? Does it ever say that Mary became pregnant a second, third, fourth, or fifth time? Does it ever say that James, Joseph, Judas, or Simon are the sons of Joseph or the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus? No it doesn't, and if any of these were the case it would be odd to leave these significant facts out considering that Mary is after all the mother of Jesus Christ. In fact, to the contrary, it does say that James was the son of Alpheaus (or Clopas) and that Mary the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joseph. In the Gospel of John, we read that while on the cross Jesus tells his mother, referring to John the 'beloved disciple', "Woman, behold thy son!" and then to John, "Behold, thy mother!" in which he entrusts his mother to the care of John. This makes sense in the context of Jewish tradition and law where women had to be in the care of men, since Jesus will no longer be able to care for her and presumably Joseph her wife has already passed away. However this does not make sense if Jesus has four other brothers by Mary, or even more unlikely if Mary had remarried. The best explanation of this verse is that Jesus was her only child, and Joseph her only lawful husband. Your argument that since in Mark 6:3 it uses the word "brother" that they must be full-blood biological brothers, I find particularly flimsy. In the parallel reading of Matthew 13:55 it reads "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" Are we then to also suppose a literal reading here that Jesus is the full-blood biological son of Joseph the carpenter? Obviously not, as Christians must necessarily believe Jesus to be the son of God. So by insisting upon such a literalistic (and dare I say dogmatic) reading of the text, you can if you wish go so far as to nullify the very divinity of Jesus. The greater context, both textual and historical are needed in order to derive the correct understanding. This brings me to my second argument, which is the historical argument. The perpetual virginity of Mary was attested as being believed by the original fathers and doctors of the Church such as St. Irenaeus, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, by the traditions of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as by many of the founders of the Protestant reformation, such as Martin Luther of Lutheranism, Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer of Anglicanism, and John Wesley of Methodism, and other reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli. Why does your doctrine outweigh the traditional teachings, understandings, and interpretations of all of these testimonies and arguments throughout history? Was the Church constantly in error for nearly 2000 years from the Resurrection until now? Why then would Christ promise in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."? Has the entire Church been deceived up until the private revelation of Mike Winger? Surely Christ is not a liar.
Great response, brother. I do agree with Mike, we need to let the text speak for itself. And I believe a faithful reading of the text itself, without preconceived doctrines, will certainly point one towards an understanding of Mary's perpetual virginity. I'll briefly recount a fascinating teaching by Brant Pitre, which I believe he explores more deeply in his book 'Jesus And The Jewish Roots Of The Virgin Mary'. Brant calls for us to engage in a closer examination to the text of Luke 1:31-34. Verse 31, the angel Gabriel speaks to Mary: "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." Notice how Gabriel never claims that Mary was already pregnant, merely that she would (in the future!) conceive a child. Now, in light of this, why would a betrothed woman (presumably with the intention of having children in the future) react with such incredulity at a message that she (in the future) would conceive a child? Mary responded (v. 34 ESV): "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" It seems apparent that Mary had taken a vow of virginity, effective even in marriage. Now many protestant apologists will claim that no such vow exists in Scripture, however, it is mentioned in Numbers 30:13: "Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void." I hope that with honest and faithful study of the Bible, more of our brothers and sisters will come to the knowledge of the overwhelmingly biblical basis for the Catholic faith. Blessings!
A small five cents to add about the Catholic apologetic about Jesus'brothers and sisters being their alleged cousins. They (a fb dialogue page) seem to identify Mary as described in Mark 6 and Matthew 13 as a similar Mary , also described as the mother of Joses and James, also described elsewhere through the gospels. (Mark 15;40,47 i.e.) I find it a strained possibility because Jesus' brothers seemed to not follow him during the gospel events, whilst Mary, the brother of Joses certainly did. To be somewhat facetious it also makes Mary seem to be a bit of a hillbilly. You know, a "I am Daryll, that is my brother Daryll and my other brother Daryll kind of thing, although I guess it could be that the other Mary was the wife of an unknown Joseph's brother'. Bit too much mental gymnastics imo.
Catholics want to say that Joseph had kids with another wife before Mary but their nativity scenes still only have Joseph Mary and Jesus. Where was James when Jesus was born? Wouldn't these children from another marriage have gone with them to Bethlehem and Egypt? Not to mention that it says Joseph didn't lay with Mary until after Jesus was born, which means he did lay with her after Jesus was born. That is perfectly appropriate. Two married people having sex is a wonderful thing. Neither of them was commanded to abstain for the rest of their lives.
You: Not to mention that it says Joseph didn't lay with Mary until after Jesus was born, which means he did lay with her after Jesus was born. Me: No it doesn't. Scripture does work that way consistently.
@@bridgefin for example? If not, then where did Jesus' brothers and sisters come from all of a sudden? You defend your tradition against Scripture. I change my beliefs to match Scripture.
@@dahelmang You asked: for example? Me: Here are three: 1. 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) 2. 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) 3. 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”) You: If not, then where did Jesus' brothers and sisters come from all of a sudden? Me: Not sure, bro but I do know that both then and now the word "brother" can mean any kind of relative, in-law, friend, or associate. One thing we do know is that Scripture puts none of these brothers in the womb of Mary.
@@bridgefin Michal had no children until the day of her death. That was the period of time she was able to have children. After that she would not have the opportunity. Joseph did not lay with Mary until after Jesus was born. That was the period of time he chose not to sleep with his wife. After that there was no reason to refrain. Timothy was to read the Bible publicly until Paul arrived. That was to prepare people for Paul's arrival. The focus in the instruction is on the period of time until Paul arrived so his trip would be more productive. Joseph did not lay with Mary until after Jesus was born. The focus is on the period of time Joseph refrained from having sex with his wife. There was no reason to continue refraining after Jesus was born. If you look in context you will see Jesus will reign until He has put His enemies under His feet, then He will hand the kingdom to the Father. So even though it does not say until after it is actually saying something very similar to Joseph not laying with Mary until after Jesus was born. Seems like the word brother is different from the word relative here: "16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. - Luke 21:16 So when we see both brothers and sisters in this verse: "Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. - Mark 6:3 That certainly seems to say that Joseph and Mary went on having kids. And why not? No one told them not to. The only problem is your tradition demands you ignore the clear implications of the word of God.
@@dahelmang You: Michal had no children until the day of her death. That was the period of time she was able to have children. After that she would not have the opportunity. Me: So when Scripture says that nothing happened UNTIL a point in time it is saying NOTHING about the post period. When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary UTIL the birth of Jesus he is saying nothing about the period after. He is just confirming that Jesus was the result of the virgin birth and those the one prophesized. You: If you look in context you will see Jesus will reign until He has put His enemies under His feet, then He will hand the kingdom to the Father. Me: Except that he is the king ad will reign forever. You: That certainly seems to say that Joseph and Mary went on having kids. And why not? No one told them not to. The only problem is your tradition demands you ignore the clear implications of the word of God. Me: It is you who is oblivious to the implications of Scripture. Focus on Mary's question to Gabriel for a hint. Focus on the meaning of the word "brother" and stop implying that there is only one answer. Stop ignoring those of the early church who lived with Mary and knew there were no other children. And find where Scripture puts a baby into Mary and stop trying to do it yourself. And finally listen to the founders of your faith tradition who disagree with you.
IT CAN BE FAITH! Over the past 35 years I've seen my faith change radically, like day and night. The faith in my early years produced very little fruit. Today I see tangible results, everyday. I don't live in the times of the apostles, I promise :-) One of the key factors is stand on God's word no matter what you experience, and never run with emotions or thoughts that go against the word. Believe God, completely.
TreKater joh 17 17 I know it makes Catholics feel superior to think so, but there are far less non-Catholic denominations than the RCC says, and far less disagreement on the doctrines central to salvation. Truth divides, haven’t you heard?
@@bellalugosi5853 True. I wonder why they grossly exaggerate the numbers. Plus, many of the churches placed under "Protestant" don't even follow Sola Scriptura.
@@bellalugosi5853 - Individual interpretation. Which makes it appear the Holy Spirit has a different exegesis for each person. God is not a God of confusion. The chaos of over 31,000 denominations (and who knows how many in them ''hear' the voice of God differently than the denomination they are a part of) should prove that your interpretation is not necessarily led by the Holy Spirit. Be careful. I've seen some get really far off thinking they are hearing the voice of God. The devil transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive. Be careful my sister. You are walking on thin ice.
With stating that the etymology of a word and the meaning of it is not directly connected, this is still considerable: The word adelphós is thought to be inherited from a Proto-Indo-European word meaning something like 'same womb', and in Greek to be equivalent with ha- ('same, one') + delphús ('womb').
Seethi C - Absolutely. Jewish tradition was very clear about sons looking after their mothers. Hence we know Mary only had one son. Also these “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
@@itsthedude3138 The key is that there was more than one 'Mary'. Scripture tells us when the 'Mary' is the mother of Jesus (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) or whether it is a different 'Mary" - as below: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40) What you might find interesting is that the earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions.
@@candyclews4047 I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying other explanations of James the bother of Jesus, such as historian Josephus or even James' own writings are not earlier than the Protoevangelium?
is Mark 6 and Luke 4 supposed to be the same account? Mark 6 has the disciples following him, but in Luke 4 they don't quite appear to be part of his ministry yet. How is this understood or resolved?
Temple vs Synagogue. In the Temple they do worship where priests do their thing with sacrifices, and in the synagogue they gather together and preach and study. We have this today. The Temple is the catholic church where there is a memorial sacrifice and worship. In the Protestant church we have a gathering and studying and preaching.
Agreed, so there is no such thing as a Protestant “church” if it doesn’t conduct proper worship Jn 6 51-58, so they attend synagogue for prayer and teaching, but no worship
@@geoffjs I agree There is one Christian church and it was established by God. Anything else is a creation of sinners in opposition to God and his only church.
Mike. Thank you for highlighting why Jesus stopped reading Isaiah 61 just where He did. I have sometimes wondered about that. Now, it seems so clear and obvious. God bless your good work in His name. Amen.
In the Catholic Church we pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters, that they too may come to know the fullness of the faith. In the Protestant Church they proclaim that Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon and I rarely hear a prayer for them. Never referred to as brother and sisters in Christ. Criticizing the child molestation among priests when it's been shown that in their Protestant churches the same abuse is worse! I can see the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Catholic Church in this video. It is strongly biased by the Protestant "tradition". And seems to forget that for the first 1500+ years it was The Church (together with the Orthodox Church). Were those years full of false Christians? Did they die in vain when they were martyred? Had Jesus abandoned his Church for over 1500 years and allowed the gates of hell to prevail against it? Were the Catholic Bishops that through the Holy Spirit decided which books went into the New Testament inspired, or misled by the tradition they used? Or should we better accept Luther, trying to have the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation removed from the Canon? Wasn't that a good sign that perhaps the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding Him? When exactly will people search without bias for the Truth? Study the History of the Church without bias for the Truth? Or is continued listening to misinformation on the Catholic Church necessary for the Protestant Church to continue to grow and thrive even into more denominations at the expense of Truth a necessity to promote falsehood? I really would like an honest answer.
I think the first thing you should look up is when the Orthodox Church actually left, and why. This has nothing to do with Protestants because we didn’t exist yet.
@@HueyBob24 - when I say catholic I do not mean necessarily Roman Catholic. Catholic means universal. I attend an Orthodox Church. So I'm quite familiar with the schism over the Bishop of Rome's rulership. And you are correct, Protestants didn't even exist then. So where was the Church? It certainly didn't cease to exist between the 1st and the 16th centuries. If I were you, this would definitely make me wonder. Because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Protestants couldn't have restored it by stripping away all the doctrines of the Early Church..
leavesnpetals I’ll admit I don’t know much at all about the Orthodox Church, nor do I think that we tried to wipe away 1500 years of previous theology. We agree on most, and we can argue bias for an eternity, we are still family, and I do not include those that are heretical and preach a different Jesus. So I’ll ask then, why would you feel it is so important to believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, when it doesn’t say that in the Bible Matt 1:25, it also does not speak of this in the Old Testament. As you say we are steeped in our Protestant tradition, but I don’t see what you mean by tradition, when I only follow the Bible. As Jesus taught against the traditions of the Pharisees and the laws made up by man and not God. I would appreciate an honest assessment of my beliefs, and I’m sorry if I came across snarky.
leavesnpetals I do pray for Catholics, by which I should just say Roman Catholicism, my best friend is one, but trying to get any dialog out of her is impossible. My argument with Rome and the abuse issue is that by allowing marriage much of the sexual immorality would not exist, it exists in our church as well, as it is everywhere in this fallen world, but when the top guy who says he speaks for God does nothing and sweeps it under the rug , it’s not wrong for everyone to be angry., and want justice for those that were abused. I also believe that God is shaking the whole church body and cleaning house, and bringing all these things into the light.
@@HueyBob24 = I agree with everything you write. Except that the Pope finally did acknowledge the problem, make restitution (though no amount of money compensates for the damage that has been perpetrated by molestation). And you are correct, sadly in this fallen world the problem is not catholic, alone. The Protestant Church has been equally guilty. Although I don't believe it's because of vows of celibacy as much as it is out of a lack of respect for another person and for God. More often than not they are males preying on young boys, and how do we address this issue? But I believe we are on the same page. God bless you Heather.
I can’t get this to load under the listen link in the BibleThinker app and if I do the video my teen with A.D.D will watch the video and not get anything out of it and the only way for us all to hear it well enough is to mirror it to the television. Edit: sorry for all the information but I know there are people who would just tell me to watch the video or flip my phone over.
According to Mark, was Jesus’ mother, Mary, among the family that thought he was crazy? How could that be if she was visited by the angel and knew of and accepted the miraculous conception and knew he was the son of God?
All the original Protestants - Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Wesley, etc. - all proclaimed the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity and so did their followers. Which Protestant sect changed this and when?
@@dahelmang In other words, neither Luther nor Calvin were equipped by God to start Protestantism because God equips those whom he calls. Therefore Protestantism is of men and not of God. It exists in opposition to God. Thank you for that insight and now do the right thing and close your doors and return to God.
@@bridgefin let me get this straight. You are saying because these men were not perfect they were not called by God? That's not how Catholics treat the Popes. Protestantism is a return to Scripture after 1500 years of men adding their own traditions. Luther and Calvin etc were not Apostles. Their writings were not inspired. They were used by God to accomplish a task. Luther was a Catholic and wanted to hold onto the traditions he found familiar. Just read the 95 theses. They were written by a Catholic who was just starting to question what he was told. Just like Catholics today with the crazy Francis you have in office now.
@@dahelmang You: You are saying because these men were not perfect they were not called by God? Me: You missed the point completely. Not perfection, but being equipped by God. If God CALLS you to reform his church and start it new he does not let you teach heresy. Jesus promised that the spirit of truth would be with the apostles forever just for this reason. There are many biblical verses which affirm this but here is just one: 2 Timothy 3:17 ESV That the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. So, if God did not equip Luther and Calvin with the truth, then he didn't send them. And if he didn't send them then someone ELSE did or they sent themselves. In any case their effort would be thus proven to be either man made or satanic inspired. BUT maybe Protestantism is God's new choice and Luther and Calvin WERE equipped. THEN you are all in heresy to your founders. In any event modern Protestantism is either proven to be man made or currently in heresy.
@@bridgefin you just took a verse completely out of context. Let me show you. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 The emphasis here is on Scripture equipping the man of God. That's the whole point of the Reformation. You Catholics added to Scripture just like the Pharisees. Treating your traditions as more important than the words of God. As far as Biblical parallels I would point to Josiah and Hezekiah. Josiah brought the people of Israel back to God's Law. Hezekiah tore down the high places where people had been led into paganism. That's what the Reformation was about: going back to the word of God and abandoning pagan additions. If it took more than one generation in the Old Testament why would you expect it to be completed in one generation in the 1500s? You are not using Biblical standards. I don't know where you get these ideas from, but it's not from God's word.
*MARK 6:3: BROTHERS OF JESUS, BUT NOT SONS OF MARY* _You keep using that verse. I don't think it means what you think it means._ Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3) It seems odd, but no verse of scripture ever called anyone a son or daughter of Mary except Jesus. And for good reason: 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. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions or want more information. Thanks.
Wayne Hampson - Think of the power of God. You are looking at this through mans' eyes. Since when does basic human anatomy form a child without having the male sperm penetrating the female egg? Yet it happened in Jesus' case. No sperm, a miraculous conception.
@@andrewstone3502 When did Augustine claim that Mary had other children? Everyone else here is after the Reformation (aka, only the later fourth Christian history).
@@Seethi_C Which origin and all the church father who denied the apocryphal texts Augustine's text never had nor any manuscript contained the idea Mary was always a virgin. Origen did hold to the position that Mary was a perpetual virgin per his homily on Luke 7:4
@@Seethi_C nobody believed the idea of Mary being perpetually a virgin until Protoevangelium of James. Which is like other forgeries trying to capitalize on an apostle
Like most Catholic works it was added and change to fit the needs of the church. Hats books actions and beliefs to force doctrines that control the freedom of believers. Peter denied christ 3 times.... Yet they say Christ built his church on only him. And he answered to the apostle James...please pray and ask god for guidance then read your Bible Sir.
@@veritasmuy2407 I understand there are contradictions but that wasn't the question. Thank you for answering though. Probably the only answer I'll get. Lol
Mike cannot prove Mary had other children by referring to Jesus's brothers in the context of the family. For brothers can mean fellow believers or cousins in familial terms as well. Mike proposes a false dichotomy where he says do we go with tradition or what the scriptures teach. For Mike has not demonstrated Jesus had biological brothers, but only provides soft rhetorical arguments which hint at one conclusion, rather than another conclusion. Also Mike himself falls into a fallacy of introducing a false oral tradition of Jesus having biological brothers which is not found in the scriptures. Or Mike misreads several texts and ignores the oral tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Mike seems to want to replace the true Catholic faith with his own version of Mike's faith. I trust the Christ who controls the 2000 years of church history which is thoroughly catholic, rather than the fallible musings of a private interpreter of the sacred text.
The plain reading of the text is that they are Jesus' brothers. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the text doesn't mean what it says. I don't see much proof in the text that they are cousins, or that Mary was perpetually a virgin. Maybe there is evidence elsewhere, but it's simply not in the Bible.
@@snippletrap Protestants like Mike fail to embrace the necessary consequent ambiguity within the scriptural text that follows from scripture alone. The text can be read in more than one way when the text is taken away from the church that wrote it and the tradition that was delivered from Christ and the apostles. Mikes presentation only further highlights the many weaknesses in the scripture alone doctrine of evangelical Protestantism. By Protestants ignoring the tradition that Mary remained a virgin, there is no proof texts for Mary as remaining a virgin or not. The protestants know this so they back up their arguments with empty rhetoric to sway the believers into the protestant position. The Protestants have no proof for their contention that Mary had other children.
John Martin can you please point out to me in scripture where you would pray the rosary and revere Mary, in which we pray to her to intercede our prayers to God?
Sylvia H That’s bc Orthodox and Roman Catholicism are the same thing the only dispute, being the authority of the Papacy or Pope?i mean correct me if I’m wrong.
I always thought of “the son of Mary” as Mark knowing that Jesus was/is the Son of God and that he didn’t want to give biological rights to Joseph concerning Jesus.
There are the first traditional and u came way way later so distorted !!!!! One true holy catholic church have u heard that statement true n Catholic 🙏🏻
@@MDD-ut8wo spitting out blind rhetoric is not an answer to my simple question. Is questioning the validity of some of the Catholic claims "bagging" on them?
@@MDD-ut8wo you are avoiding the question again and masking it as you making a point. The validity of scripture is NOT in question. Only the claims bases on said scripture made by the the Catholic church. So I ask again, how is he "bashing" Catholics? It's ok to say you don't like the topic and/or the points made. But if you say that he is "bashing" and can't prove it you are either lying or failing to properly listen/understand what he is saying. If you call yourself a Christian or even a Jesus following person it is your responsibility to be honest and humble. Don't be ashamed or too proud to say you made a mistake. It's okay because we all do it sometimes and will likely do it again in the future. I've done it more than a few times on TH-cam in comments.
She couldn't have been a virgin forever,virginity is a this layer of skin that must remain in tact to be considered a virgin,well in pretty sure when Jesus came out the birth canal,that was the end of that.And since it is the custom of the Jews and all peoples that the marriage must be consecrated, through the joining of two becoming one,it would be safe to say Joseph didn't stand around twittling his thumbs for 20 years.hopefully we can agree on that.
It was not a normal birth. Scripture said that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. If he is born AFTER he breaks that skin then she is no longer a virgin and he is no longer the Messiah. You: it would be safe to say Joseph didn't stand around twittling his thumbs for 20 years.hopefully we can agree on that. Me: Maybe safe but not true. Even Luther did not agree with that.
@@veritasmuy2407 You: but after Jesus physical pushed thru the birth canal, Mary was no longer a virgin. Me: Simple birth mechanics. If giving birth makes you a non virgin then Mary was not a virgin when she delivered Jesus and thus Jesus is not the product of a virgin birth and we don't have the Messiah yet. Burden of proof is on you to prove that Jesus had a normal birth. Our traditions hold that he did not come through the birth canal. Nothing about his conception was normal why why impose a normal delivery? You: if GOD had given her that "GIFT OF PERPETUAL VIRGINITY" then the guys that KNEW Mary and wrote the NT would have mentioned such a miracle. Me: They did and you missed it.
@@veritasmuy2407 You: No matter, according to Matthew 1:25, Joseph waited until after Jesus' birth to boink Mary -- many times. And Mary's WOMB popped out several more children for Joseph -- see John 7:3-5 -- the word is ADELPHOS which means "brothers of the WOMB" -- Mary's WOMB. Me: How many children did Michal have?
@@veritasmuy2407 You: The NT written by the guys that KNEW Mary and were the Original Church, state that Mary's womb popped out other children after Jesus Me: That is a lie. They said that Jesus had brothers and sisters but NEVER said that they were Mary's children. The way Scripture uses adelphos they could have been friends from another city.
@@veritasmuy2407 Yes, John states that Jesus' brothers FROM THE SAME WOMB (Mary's womb) did not believe that Jesus was the prophesied Jewish Messiah -- see John 7:3-5. Me: "FROM THE SAME WOMB" is missing from ALL of the bibles I checked. Please quote from whatever bible you found that in. Or admit your lie! You: The word that John uses to talk of Jesus' brothers is ADELPHOS from DELPHUS which means "WOMB" -- "adelphos" meaning brothers from the SAME WOMB. Me: A scholar you're not! Here's is Strong's Concordance on Adelphos: Definition: a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman any fellow or man a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection an associate in employment or office brethren in Christ his brothers by blood all men apostles Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place So, brother can mean blood brother or any fellow, or an associate. And I'm sure they don't all come from the same womb. You: And then we have LUKE stating that Jesus was just Mary's PROTOTOKOS -- meaning first born of other children (Luke 2:7) Me: Every woman who bears a child has a first born even if she dies in labor. And "firstborn" was a specific position of importance. You: And then we have Matthew 1:25 which states that Joseph did not "know/have sex" with Mary until AFTER Jesus was born. Me: I asked you before how many children Michal had. Scripture says that she didn't have any UNTIL her death, so, according to your logic she must have had children AFTER her death. Scripture says that Jesus will reign UNTIL he conquers his enemies. So I guess that Jesus no longer reigns AFTER he conquers them. Scripture often uses the concept of :until" to make a point before an not after the until period. So you got nothing!
Luther and Calvin hold to Mary's perpetual virginity. Somewhere Protestants have lost their original doctrines. Calvin: This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. - Calv Comm Matt 1.25 Luther: Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really mean “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Luther’s Works, vol. 22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )
@Sterling Crowne HAHAHA. Here's what Strong's Concordance about "adelphos": NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin from alpha (as a cop. prefix) and delphus (womb) Definition a brother NASB Translation believing husband (1), brethren (170), brethren* (13), brother (111), brother's (8), brothers (40). All sorts of people can be adelphos and never came in contact with the same mother. You can even be from a different country and be of no blood relation at all and be adelphos in Scripture. I suggest you get an education.
@Sterling Crowne The word is sourced from womb, it does not mean it is the same womb. We know that Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew. But Scripture say they were "adelphos". Not the same womb. You are happy to stay ignorant. When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9). Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21-22). The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13-14). Let's say a prayer for King Azariah's poor mother.
@@veritasmuy2407 A. Luther had no divine authority. Thus man made fiasco. B. Jesus established Peter as head of the church and gave him complete authority.
*BUT JESUS CANNOT and DID NOT HAVE BLOOD SIBLINGS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE:* Luke 1:36 Darby Translation 36 And behold, Elizabeth, thy *kinswoman,* she also has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month to her that was called barren: ----- Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin." Luke 1:36 21st Century King James Version 36 And behold, thy *cousin* Elizabeth: she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Luke 1:36 International Standard Version 36 And listen! Elizabeth, *your relative,* has herself conceived a son in her old age, this woman who was rumored to be barren is in her sixth month. Luke 1:36 King James Version 36 And, behold, thy *cousin* Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Acts 1:13-15 International Standard Version 13 When they came into the city, these men went to the upstairs room where they had been staying: Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son[b] of James. 14 With one mind, all of them kept devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women (including Mary the mother of Jesus) *and his brothers.* 15 At that time, Peter got up among *the brothers* (there were about 120 people present) and said, ----- the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew. Romans 9:3 King James Version 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for *my brethren, my kinsmen* according to the flesh. ----- Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children. Genesis 11:26-28 King James Version 26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. 27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and *Haran begat Lot.* 28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. ----- Lot is Abraham's nephew *("anepsios")* Genesis 13:8 New Century Version 8 *Abram said to Lot,* “There should be no arguing between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, *because we are brothers.* ----- Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin. Genesis 29:15 King James Version 15 And *Laban said unto Jacob,* Because thou art *my brother,* shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be? ------ Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin. ----- Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin." 2 Samuel 1:26 King James Version 26 I am distressed for thee, *my brother Jonathan:* very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 1 Kings 9:13 King James Version 13 And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, *my brother?* And he called them the land of Cabul unto this day. 1 Kings 20:32 King James Version 32 So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Benhadad saith, I pray thee, let me live. And he said, Is he yet alive? *he is my brother.* ----- here we see that "brother" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend. 2 Kings 10:13-14 Authorized (King James) Version 13 Jehu met with *the brethren of Ahaziah king of Judah,* and said, Who are ye? And they answered, We are *the brethren of Ahaziah;* and we go down to salute the children of the king and the children of the queen. 14 And he said, Take them alive. And they took them alive, and slew them at the pit of the shearing house, even two and forty men; neither left he any of them. ------ King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen. 1 Chronicles 23:21-22 Authorized (King James) Version 21 The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish. 22 And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and *their brethren* the sons of Kish took them. ----- Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins. Nehemiah 4:14 International Standard Version 14 Looking things over, I stood up and spoke to the officials, the military leaders, and the rest of the people: “Don’t fear them. Remember the great and awe-inspiring Lord. Fight for *your brothers, your sons, your daughters,* your wives, and your homes.” Nehemiah 5:1 New American Standard Bible Charging Interest Abolished 5 Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their *Jewish brothers.* Nehemiah 5:5 New American Standard Bible 5 And now our flesh is like the flesh of *our brothers,* our children like their children. Yet behold, we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters are forced into bondage already, and [a]we are helpless because our fields and vineyards belong to others.” Nehemiah 5:8 New American Standard Bible 8 And I said to them, “We, according to our ability, have redeemed our *Jewish brothers* who were sold to the nations; now would you even sell your brothers that they may be sold to us?” Then they were silent and could not find a word to say. ----- these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen" NOT blood siblings. Tobit 5:11 New Catholic Bible 11 Tobit said, *“Brother, tell me what family and tribe you belong to.”* ----- Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother." Amos 1:9 New King James Version 9 Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Tyre, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, And did not remember the covenant of *brotherhood.* ----- brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).
There is really know arguing that Mary remained a virgin after birthing Jesus. The bible clearly refutes that postion. Matthew 1:24-25 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Joseph clearly consummated his marriage after Jesus was born. So much for the LIE that is "the perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of God."
You are trying to force a false meaning on the word "until". In another place Scripture says that a particular woman had no children until she died. Do dead women have babies? That's what your use of the word "until" forces.
@@bridgefin the word in 2 Samuel 6:23 is "unto". Perhaps one day you'll learn to read before you run your mouth. The verse in question means that she had no children the entire time she lived. Not "UNTIL" she died.
There is no virgin birth narrative in the gospel of Matthew! During the Second Temple Period, the betrothal (kiddushin) came first, which was followed a year later by the nisu'in (nuptials), when the husband (et al) "carries" his wife from her father's house and brings her to the home that he's prepared for her. (Cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins). I submit that the use of συνελθεῖν (came together) in Matthew 1:18 refers to the nisu'in (nuptials), when the husband and wife publicly "come together" (συνέρχομαι) as a couple and the ketubah (marriage contract) is read aloud. The Church assumes that the Greek word συνέρχομαι alludes to the couple "coming together" in a sexual union. Yet, the word συνέρχομαι is used of Yeshu "coming together" with his disciples (Acts 1:6) and it's used of Cornelius' kinsmen and near friends "coming together" (Acts 10:24-27) and it's used of Paul and the chief of the Jews "coming together" (Acts 28:17), etc. In short, the word συνέρχομαι needn't be interpreted as "coming together" in a sexual union. Prior to the 3rd century C.E., Jewish law (halakah) held that a man obtained a wife by 1. paying money (kessef), 2. a written declaration of intent (shetar), and 3. sexual intercourse (bi'ah) - Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. (See also, "The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" by Maurice Lamm, pp. 143f). It was the custom among the plebeian class of Jews to have coitus (bi'ah) as part of their betrothal (kiddushin). Why? Aside from tradition, it was only logical for the groom to ensure that his wife was indeed a virgin, rather than pay the kessef (money) and the mohar (dowry of 200 zuzim for a virgin) and scrape together the funds to pay for the wedding feast, only to find out at the nisu'in (nuptials) that his wife wasn't a virgin. Lamm writes (ibid., p. 146), "After the man has addressed the marriage formula to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting the betrothal (kiddushin) through intercourse (bi'ah). The Sages considered this to be gross, virtually an act of prostitution (πορνεία), and in the third century Rav decreed flogging for those who chose this manner of betrothal. Nonetheless, if the marriage was performed in this way it was legally valid. Only kessef is performed today; both intercourse and contract as forms of betrothal are obsolete." The account in Matthew is simply stating that Miriam was found to be pregnant by Yosef prior to their "coming together" at the nuptials (nisu'in). As for the role played by HaShem's Spirit in the conception, proto-Rabbinic Judaism teaches the following: "There are three partners in man ... his father supplies the ... substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the ... substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. HaShem gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, HaShem takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them" - Niddah 31a; cf. She'iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10). In short, HaShem's Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child! We are all the literal Offspring of OUR Heavenly Father. Why did Yosef want to secretly divorce Miriam? Because he wanted to save her from the gossips among the patrician class of Jews, who regarded the combination of kessef (money) and bi'ah (coitus) to effect the kiddushin (betrothal) as being tantamount to prostitution (πορνεία). Nevertheless, Yosef was reminded in a dream that he'd followed the established halakah (religio-legal ruling), so there was no need to be ashamed. That being said, later in Yeshu's life, certain Judeans said to him, "We be not born of fornication (πορνεία); we have one Father ... HaShem" (John 8:41). Obviously, this was meant to be a taunting jab at the circumstances of Yeshu's conception during his parents' kiddushin (betrothal), which these particular Judeans regarded as being essentially an act of prostitution (πορνεία). How did Yeshu's followers combat this vituperation? They simply pointed to Isaiah 7:14, as a halakhic proof text that conceiving a child as part of the betrothal phase was perfectly acceptable, because the text reads that a "newlywed" (עַלְמָה - cf. Jastrow's dictionary) will conceive a child, who, like each and every child, will have a soul that is a portion of the Deity from above (chelek Elokim mima'al). HaShem is with and within all of us! Yeshu's Jewish followers had no intention of using Isaiah 7:14 as a means to espouse their belief in parthenogenesis. They'd have regarded the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Miriam's Immaculate Conception to be patently absurd!
@Sterling Crowne - I'm fully aware of what your Xtian dogma has to say on the matter. It's amazing what people can come up with once they opt to return to their pagan roots.
@Sterling Crowne - Read W.D. Davies, "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology." He has a has an entire chapter on the Second Adam. You won't be disappointed.
@Sterling Crowne - AGAIN, your opinion means nothing because you don't want to place the material in question back into its proper historical, linguistic, and cultural context. Instead you're reading the texts through the eyes of church theology which wasn't even fully developed until hundreds upon hundreds of years after the historical man and his immediate followers died. You're projecting your beliefs into the texts, rather than reading them through the eyes of the original authors and their redactors!
@Sterling Crowne - What this passage is speaking about in the proto-Rabbinic concept of the Evil Inclination (Heb. Yetzer HaRa) and the Good Impulse (Heb. Yetzer HaTov). The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "ruach," which means "wind." One of the functions of "wind" is aeolian erosion whereby the wind removes the loose particles of earth and thereby reveals what hitherto had been hidden beneath them. In this sense, the word "ruach" means an agent of revelation. An unclean spirit is simply a manifestation of an unclean revelation within the human psyche that is rooted in one's Evil Imagination (Yetzer HaRa). The Evil Inclination isn't "evil" in and of itself, because without it we wouldn't engage in business, build a home, marry or have children. It's merely our Survival Instinct and Sex Drive, which are good things, but they can quickly become evil when we allow our "fleshly" selfish urges to run amok. We're born with the Evil Inclination switched on. It's what Freud call the "Id" and what the Apostle Paul called the "sarx" (flesh) and "the old man." (See, "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology" by W.D. Davies, pp. 17f). Our Good Impulse (Yetzer HaTov) only comes online when we reach the age of accountability and make a choice to follow a moral code. Freud called this Good Impulse the "Super-Ego" and the Apostle Paul called it the "pneuma" (lit. spirit; wind) and "the new [man]," because, if you're a Jew, the Good Impulse is 12 to 13 years younger than the Evil Inclination. In other words, when a Jewish boy/girl becomes a son/daughter of the Mitzvot, they are "born again," because their Good Imagination comes online and begins the work of taming the Evil Imagination and turns it into a servant of OUR Heavenly Father. Rami bar Abba says like this: What is the meaning of that which is written: "There was a little city and few men in it, and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a man poor and wise, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man" (Ecclesiastes 9:14-15)? "A little city," this is referring to the body; "and few men in it," this is referring to the limbs; "and there came a great king against it and besieged it," this is referring to the Evil Inclination; "and built great bulwarks against it," these are sins. The Gemara expounds on the next section of the verse: "Now there was found in it a man poor and wise," this is referring to the Good Inclination; "and he by his wisdom delivered the city," this is referring to repentance and good deeds that are caused by the Good Inclination. "Yet no man remembered that same poor man" means that when the Evil Inclination overcomes the Good Inclination no one remembers the Good Inclination. - Nedarim 32b. We're supposed to use our Good Impulse to tame our Evil Inclination and turn it into a servant of HaShem. Sadly, many people don't succeed in doing this and end up leading a life devoted to heeding the whims of their own Evil Inclination. Shim'on ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) says like this, "Satan, the Evil Inclination, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence. He is the Satan who seduces people and then accuses them, as it is written: "So the Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with vile sores" (Job 2:7). He is also the Evil Inclination, as it is written there: "The impulse of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously" (Genesis 6:5); and it is written here: "Only upon himself do not put forth your hand" (Job 1:12). The verbal analogy between the various uses of the word "only" teaches that the Evil Inclination is to be identified with the Satan. He is also the Angel of Death, as it is written: "Only spare his life" (Job 2:6); apparently, Job’s life depends upon him, the Satan, and accordingly, the Satan must also be the Angel of Death. - Bava Batra 16a. When Yeshua went into the wilderness to be tempted by HaSatan ... what do you think he was being tempted by? The "Celestial Satan"...? The Prosecuting Attorney in HaShem's Heavenly Court, who stands before the Throne of HaShem and accuses the brethren day and night? Yeshua was fasting in order to tame his own Evil Imagination (Yetzer HaRa). Do you really think that HaShem, the Infinite One, has a Throne in one specific location within the Multiverse or our own universe? Where is HaShem's Throne and Heavenly Court if not within you? Where is the Rulership of HaShem (Malchut Shamayim) if not within you? Where is HaSatan, the Evil Inclination, if not within you? Peter says like this, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary (antidikos), the false accuser (diabolos), as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished *in your brethren* that are in the world" (1 Peter 5:8-9). The only unclean spirit you need concern yourself with is the unclean revelations that come from your own Evil Imagination. If you're going to follow Yeshua's gospel, then "Turn to HaShem in repentance! Because the Rulership of HaShem is a present reality!" Unlike Xtianity, Jews don't believe that "original sin," which Augustine stated was concupiscence, is a sexually transmitted and genetically inherited disorder that separates all mankind from the Deity. If one has to accept the blood atonement of your version of "Jesus" and profess him to be their Deity and Savior in order to be "born again," then why was Yeshu surprised that the historical man, Nakdimon ben Gurion, didn't know what should've been common knowledge to a teacher of Klal Yisrael? "Except a man be born of water [the amniotic fluid of the womb] and of the [HaShem's] Spirit, he cannot enter into the Rulership of HaShem. That which is born of the flesh [Evil Imagination] is flesh [the Evil Inclination]; and that which is born of the spirit [Good Imagination] is spirit [the Good Impulse]. Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again." As for the role played by HaShem's Spirit in the conception, proto-Rabbinic Judaism teaches the following: "There are three partners in man ... his father supplies the ... substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the ... substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. HaShem gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, HaShem takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them" - Niddah 31a; cf. She'iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10). I know you don't want to place this back into it's proper historical, linguistic, and cultural context. I know you believe that only Jesus's blood can atone for you sins. I know you believe in the Virgin Birth (and maybe even the Immaculation Conception). You probably think I'm some Christi-killing, benighted Jew, who's going to burn in the Lake of Fire with your Xtian version of Satan and his demons for all eternity. Just going believing that. I'm not out to convert you away from your belief-system.
Think about it. Mary literally had God inside of her. God in the flesh literally dwelled as a person inside of her. Her body nourished that of the second person of the Trinity. She was absolutely ever-virgin and to suggest otherwise not only contradicts scripture and Christian tradition but is also very disrespectful to the mother of our savior.
@@veritasmuy2407 uh, no I am not denying that Christ is the Son of God. But He is also God. I can say that since I have a proper understanding of the Trinity, which you apparently can’t say the same. If you think Christ being the Son of God is mutually exclusive to him being God, you don’t understand the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Three distinct persons, yet one God.
@@veritasmuy2407 nope, that’s heresy. All of it. Just because you have verse references, doesn’t mean they support what you’re saying. My understanding is in accord with church history, yours is not. The early church settled many of these questions, why are you still trying to interpret them on your own understanding or the understanding of some pastor you trust? Your positions are extremely dangerous, as you are completely wrong on who God is, who Jesus is, and who the Holy Spirit is.
@@darrylsturgis7389 so you are saying jesus's will has failed because his sacrafice is conditional to the will of man. That seems to be at odds with the Bible and the sovereign power of God.
@@darrylsturgis7389 - therefore are we to suppose that the children that were born and died as children in the Old Testament are in hell? Is your God that cruel?
Christ suffered the cross as a substitute for man’s sin. That is the atonement as I understand it. It’s from God’s plan fulfilled through the works of His Son. It is only through Christ’s work that we are saved. The conditional part is that we have to acknowledge that work and accept Christ as our savior. It is through Christ works and not by my works that I am saved. Many won’t accept Him and won’t be saved.
People here who are going on and on about Catholics, It's funny how all of the bible you have and know is Catholic (Catholics have the more complete version coz we've kept all the books)..the earliest teachings of the bibles that you know and believe even are from Catholic teachings..yet when YOU chose not to believe, you decide to teach the teacher. So funny! Dont forget, when is comes to things you dont understans like Marian Dogma's - even the disciples didnt understand everything, until Jesus gave them the wisdom.
@@veritasmuy2407 i understand English. However, your construction of a simple question is simply atrocious. Anyways... If you believe that the authors met Jesus, then they would have met Mary because she was with Jesus throughout his ministry..eg. at Cana and also at the foot of the cross...and if you believe the Gospel writers did not meet Jesus, then they wouldnt have met Mary too. So what is it that you believe?
@@veritasmuy2407 no one is running. Im asking you a simple question..as to what you believe. Then i can answer you based on that. Also, before you jump like a frog under fire, i will answer your questions only if you are open to an intellectual conversation..if you are more interested in throwing sacarsm and not-so-smart comments, i am not interested in engaging in a dialogue with you.
@@veritasmuy2407 its simpler to explain to someone something, when i know what it is they are thinking/believing. After the breakaway of churches, there are so many opinions and beliefs - esp when it comes to our blessed mother.
It's a joke, a partial quote of the video....it's the little things in life that really make me wonder about ones place in the world as an individul, this comment was one of them...sorry if i made your day worse or offended...forget about the whole thing ...
I actually love your videos and glad you preach with a humble heart but I really did not like your dishonesty about the ever Virgin it’s funny to me that you did not quote one historical source most of the eary Chutch fathers and apologists and theologians all say the Mary was ever virgin people who lived around the same time as the apostles who knew them knew Mary and looked after her they all said Jesus was her only son yet u say there is no evidence for this that’s dishonest Mike. And the reason Luke didn’t make a distinction about them being step brothers or cusins because it has no bearing on salvation but he did make a distinction about Joseph not being his actual father because of Jesus divinity and him being the Son Of God and actually Luke did make a distinction he always referred to Jesus The Son of Mary and then he said and his brothers and sister Luke never said that the brothers and sister were Mary children he always referred to Jesus as son of Mary and then he says and his brothers and sisters. God bless you always
@Sterling Crowne hahaha u know lying is not a good thing adelphos doesn’t mean brother of the womb hahaha seriously u telling me that Abraham and lot the Bible says adelphos so u saying lot is Abraham brother 29:15 hahaha when the Bible clearly says there uncle and nephew 🤦🏻♂️ go and ask for forgiveness for lying 🤥
@Sterling Crowne Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21-22). The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13-14). Here the facts 💁🏻
@Sterling Crowne ἀκούσας δὲ αβραμ ὅτι ᾐχμαλώτευται λωτ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ἠρίθμησεν τοὺς ἰδίους οἰκογενεῖς αὐτοῦ τριακοσίους δέκα καὶ ὀκτώ καὶ κατεδίωξεν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν ἕως δαν and here the Greek for you but YOU CANT EVEN READ IT 🥺
@Sterling Crowne 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ u can’t be serious lol you do realize that the old testaments was also written in Greek and Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint most of the time that’s the Greek version of the Old Testament the point is not what the Hebrew says it’s what the Greek version still says adelphos there no word that means brother of womb ach in Hebrew just means brother ache in Arabic brother akhoni in Aramaic brother and all three means brother which is used for siblings cusins and close relatives. Listen on a serious note there is no word for cusin in Aramaic Hebrew and Arabic so they use brother to refer to cusins and kinsmen. Plus if u wanna argue Mary had other children lol you will get crushed by the church fathers alone who were there and know the people who knew Mary and the fact that you CLEARLY HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT JEWISH CULTURE AND CONTEXTS 🤦🏻♂️
If Mike wants to really deal with atheism he should deal with the implied agnosticism and consequent atheism within Protestant Evangelicalism. The private interpretation of the texts concludes to multiple outcomes. The many outcomes infer the meaning of the text is not known within the Protestant system. As the meaning is not known, there is no way to know if a revelation has been made. And no revelation infers an agnostic position. As agnosticism is a form of practical atheism, Protestantism leads into the falsity of atheism. Mikes gospel is only a closet humanism that elevates Mikes private opinion above the text. The text then becomes subject to the human whims of the believer, such as paralleled by the secular humanists who are the judge of all things. Mike judges the text to be authored by God. The secular humanist judges the text to be authored only by man. Mike then makes a human judgement about the meaning of the text, and similarly the humanist also makes a judgement about the meaning of the text. Both Mike and the humanists become the judges of all things related to the meaning of life, and neither camp has any proof for their positions.
@@veritasmuy2407 Jesus was really telling us Mike winger has the truth when nobody else in church history believes what he believes, based upon an oral tradition invented 500 years ago. Jesus was also teaching justification by faith alone so when the elect go to heaven without any faith they are justified without faith. You can read all of that into just about any text you want, when you want, how you want, just as long as it makes you think you are one of the elect.
@@veritasmuy2407 You follow the text through the lens of your own making and disregard the safeguards of the faith in the fathers and church councils, doctors and mystics. Protestant theology s always quasi humanist by denying the legitimate testimony of faith in church history. The quasi humanism of Protestantism collapses into the atheistic, humanist age we are now suffering through. Protestantism is another form of human pride found in the Edenic garden.
@@veritasmuy2407 Mary is the mother of Christians derived from her divine maternity in relation to her Son who is the head of the church. The mother of the king is the royal mother of all covenant members of the household of faith. John 19:25-27 plays some role in explaining Mary's maternal role in the life of Christians. Her maternal care of John does give some indication of her universal care of the faithful. Prediction - some illogical response backed up without any evidence.
Mike, did you seriously just try to explain away the Christian teaching about Mary's Perpetual Virginity by saying it would seem "strange" if people referred to Jesus's cousins as His cousins? How would that be strange? Do you not refer to your cousins as cousins? Where is the strange part Mike?
@@MikeWinger Yes... but only seeing as you literally said it. Of course, we know that you have a tendency to deny your claims once people point out how ridiculous they sound. Do you really think denying your own words is an effective way to be taken seriously, Mike?
Didn’t Martin Luther as well as some Protestant scholars today believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, arguing that the brothers of the Lord were in fact cousins?
Reddishbrownhorse Shes not the mother of God that is blasphemy, God is a uncreated being he is alpha and omega, as such Nary is merely the vessel God chose to birth his physical body in to this world, so she is the earthly biological mother of the person Christ Jesus. The way you put it, it sounds like a Mother God or deity, and a Son God or deity. And btw aren’t orthodox and Roman Catholic the same minus papal authority?
Flatheads Rebuked Honoring Mary as the Mother of God is not blasphemy. We in NO WAY believe that Mary created God. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who has two natures, human and divine. It’s actually quite simple, Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God, Mary is therefore the Mother of God (not his creator!). It’s much like God created all human souls, and their mother gave birth to them. The main difference is that Jesus has two natures whereas we humans only have one. Catholics and Orthodox Christians agree on almost all issues. We do have a few differences such as papal authority. Hopefully through the work of the Holy Spirit we will be reunited.
I haven't ever seen any evidence that any of the "magic" described in the Bible is true. I would love to spend eternity with my children but I just don't believe it us true. And it sucks.
Hey Mike! Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant as made very clear by Luke (which I could go into detail about if you would like.) If you know so much about the Bible, tell me, what happens when a man touches the Ark of the Convenant?
Caterina Eremondi That’s one bs you are up 😂Joseph definitely had sex and biological children with his “wife” btw Joseph tried to leave the marriage but was ordered by God to go back to Mary.
It's a shame sometimes when you insist that jesus has brothers and sisters from Mary... even thou today u see nuns and mothers and sisters giving their life to serve God... what of the one who God chooses to be the mother of God... have u ever imagined how holy she could be compared to the mother and nuns of today... You talking about catholic it's so sad when you don't have 100% fact it's a or complete understanding of Catholicism... i was a muslims when i got called by jesus he directly too me to this Catholicism you criticise always... wish u know about God deeply... or about how jesus converted me become catholic from my Muslim faith this all happened in prison and in Indonesia the country with highest population in Islam.... please teach people but stop criticising people who believe in the father, the son and the holy spirit... Jesus will love that
Unfortunately, there are many sects of supposed Christianity that does not have sound teachings. Catholicism is very cult-like. It is not teaching the truth of the Bible. Mike is simply trying to teach what the Bible says.. and does not make up things to feed his agenda. You cannot be upset with him about conveying what he has learned. You should be thankful he is trying to spread truth. Please look up his videos on Catholicism. I was brought up Catholic. I was married to a Muslim. Neither teach truth. I'm sorry to say. I hope you continue to listen to Mike and seek the truth for yourself
@@Sadielady1978 you are wrong my friend... so as Mike am not saying this because i wanted to say it... if u understand my comment well i was saying Mike is wrong because jesus called me to Catholicism and if they were cult like you said that means jesus is wrong but he is our lord and saviour and knows best... you won't understand not matter how i explain it here..... am not catholic because of anyone but jesus himself made me catholic from Islam faith... that alone proved catholic to be right even thou they can make mistakes bt they ar ture We don't understand many things about God..that is why we are divided something that jesus prayed for us to be one as he and the father is one.. Saying Catholicism is wrong is like a child saying to the mother you don't know how to make a baby...understand this please
@@Sadielady1978 i agree with you on that That there are many sect of supposed Christians that does not have sound teachings... that include Mike sect as well my friend all sects do have their mistakes and trust me only the creator know so let us stop judging ourselves on our mistakes let alone the creator do...🙏✝️
@@johnturay4669 I understand that you believe that. I would still encourage you to listen to Mike's teachings on Catholicism. Neither he or I hate Catholics. Jesus called you out of Islam. And now that you have a better understanding of Jesus, the Lord has brought you here now to even better understand the Bible and Jesus. Thank you and God Bless.
@Juan Parra Christianity was founded on believing in Christ. Christianity was taken over by Catholicism. Protestant is simply a taking back of regular Christianity. Martin Luther saw what the Catholic church was doing to Christianity and wanted to simplify what it was doing to Christian teaching. Christianity, as Mike is teaching, began when Christ was alive, over 2000 yrs ago. Maybe you don't have a sound understanding of Christianity. Catholicism was not its founder. .
This is wonderful , 18 pts and its only ch 6 . This is why I { my opinion } think that a believer shouldnt just study alone , Seeking out a qualified Teacher and listening closely , exposes you to a much deeper understanding of scripture { even familar ones } . I have read Mark countless times in the last 40 yrs and never got even half of what Mike just revealed to me . Thanks Pastor Mike
30:19 At the time I was listening to this, I was thinking about how I kept sinning over and over and just could not stop. I felt like I was letting God down after all he had done for me, but then as soon as Mike started saying this, it was like a light just turned on. The second he started, it was like it was Jesus himself was talking directly to me, saying "Don't worry about it, just try your best." Thanks Mike, and of course Jesus.
No where does Jesus tell us to do our best. Jesus said, "whom the Son sets free is free indeed." And, "those who sin are the slave of sin." If you are trapped in a cycle of sin, you need to seek God with genuine repentance and come to know Christ.
Hi, I know you wrote this comment 3 years ago, but I just wanted to say I felt the exact same. It tore me apart, not that I'm perfect now I just had a few repetitive sin issues. I hope your doing better and have won that spirit/ flesh battle.
I don't understand why Jesus wasn't recognised as a prophet since his family knew that he was born of a virgin and the angels appeared at his birth, and the three kings searched for him. And when they call him out of the house and say that he is out of his mind? Surely, his family would have KNOWN that he was special hence why would they say he was out of his mind? Very confusing.
Remember His parents knew who Jesus was, but that doesn't mean His siblings and neighbors believed. If your parents said your brother was born while your mom was a virgin, but all your neighbors insisted that your parents were adulterers and the virgin story was made up, how long would you believe your parents?
I really enjoyed this, wise Brother, and I look forward to sharing and watching more... May God bless you and yours all the way up to your hearing those incredible Words, "Well done, good and faithful servant... Enter into My rest."
I hope this doesn't offend, but, please, be careful of putting whole groups into "boxes". I happen to be a member of that "older generation", you mentioned, and, though I won't argue -eutics, -isms, -ologies, or translations, I use my skills as an old hippie-artist-JesusFreak to reach out to the world on the Internet. To top it off, my engineer/ComputerGeek husband (who's been working on computers since they filled rooms instead of microchips, 52 years ago) helps me serve AND has his own ministry sharing the Good News as well. Most of all, we know what The Word of God says, so how could we not be about our Master's business till He returns? The truth is that I'm always trying to find out what pleases our King, and I know I'm not alone doing that in my generation... :)
I have heard many atheists claim they are following evidence and not emotion. When questioned on a deeper level, many of them reveal they’re motivated by rage. Often it’s rage towards the father figure.
While crappy motives are likely present, there are rational reasons one would find the idea that this scripture is true or else we're all condemned for vague infractions irrational. I suspect everyone has crappy motives deep down as we're all human. But that the rational arguments still should be addressed.
What I see in the Catholic Church is that Jesus hangs on the cross, like a hunting trophy, the Jewish God they killed. And they have patented and slapped Mary on a lunch box, and here is your god and no, we don't know and can't guarantee you will go to heaven. But, yes we still believe in Jesus only he is only able to forgive you of menial sins, ones which you don't go to hell for anyway. It is our priests who can absolve you of serious sin and we want to know all the details to be able to control you. This makes the priests and the church powerful and the real Jesus incredibly weak. And it is so wrong and so wicked. It keeps masses of people from every knowing the Risen Lord and the True Savior! Truly these are those we are warned about, who hold a form of religion but deny the power of it and from such turn away. To know the real Risen Lord, is being saved in many ways on a daily basis. Of having the spirit in my heart making plain which way I am to go. To have my heart so full of Jesus in my heart, it is an experience of the Glory of God. Of godly sorrow, so that we do repent of sins. Some of the healings I've received have been instant, others have been that God led me to eat some foods and totally leave others alone. Jesus frequently does not heal two people the same way, He treats us as the individuals we are. Truly we have reaches a time when so many foods are toxic. In this day and age I pray for revival, and the Lord told us to fast and pray so I can't fast continually so I did not give up meat for Lent, I gave it up until He comes. But my arthritis went away, my cholesterol became normal and my weight is in the normal range. Grace is a free gift, but yes, it does cost us something. What it costs us is freeing us from sin itself.
It is possible, also as a caveat, that Mary may have still been alive during the writing of the 4 Gospels, and could provide first hand confirmation, along with the other surviving apostles, to the true testimony of this written book to church of believers.
@@thomasbailey921 I don't think that it is a coincidence that John's gospel is so lofty after he spent so much tie with Mary. What insight must she have had after spending 33 years in direct relationship with Jesus.
quote---it is possible, also as a caveat, that Mary may have still been alive during the writing of the 4 Gospels, and could provide first hand confirmation, along with the other surviving apostles, to the true testimony of this written book to church of believers.--unquote Nope--She was given to John at the cross; He took her to his house. According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary technically could have been betrothed at about 12, but most Jewish women in Palestine of her time married during their late teens or early twenties. Hyppolitus of Thebes says that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD. THe Jewish custom is for girls age 13 to go through a ritual to be considered at age of consent.. IF_-Mary was age -say 14- at the time of Jesus birth-----He was age 33 at his death-----14 plus 33--plus 11 equals 58 years old. After research, the average age for an Israelite at that time was 60 to die. ---Mary died in 41AD----- Mary year of birth--10BCE.---??? John died at age 98----- (At what age did Apostle John die? 88 years (11 AD-99 AD)
A love your explaination around 40 minutes!!! That helps a lot in all the confusion of all these false healing 'sermons' 💙 (sorry for my bad Dutch english)
He doesn't trash it. He speaks the truth about your cult. And protestantism is just going off GODs word for instruction. I mean bro... look at the long line of popes. You can't possibly think their the vicors of Christ. Theirs no such thing. Idolatry is a very serious matter. Repent before it's to late.
@@JesusWept1999 Jesus weeps over Mike's ignorance of Jesus' only church and over the fact that Mike constantly attacks him by attacking his church. You, too, misunderstand I see. Blame that on your false teachers.
@@JesusWept1999 Let's examine the scriptures to see what is true. When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17) Jesus, the Good Shepherd, declared, "There shall be one flock, one shepherd." (cf. John 10:16) After His resurrection, Jesus instructed Peter to "take care of" and "feed" the sheep of His flock (cf. John 21:15-17). *One who acts as a substitute or agent for someone in a higher position is known as a “vicar”. Jesus is in heaven; Peter was the first vicar of Christ on earth.* And here's the best part: Because Jesus is an eternal king whose reign will never end, the office of His vicar on earth has continued and will continue until He comes again. Peter and his successors, the Popes of the Catholic Church have continued serving in this office, ensuring continuity in leadership and the preservation of Christ's authority. I hope this helps.
Hi there. I've been 'agnostic' for about 40 years. My family went to a 'mainstream' Christian church when I was a child, but my family weren't particularly 'devout', and about the age of 10 my faith just started evaporating & fell away. However, two months ago I started having a major 'spiritual awakening', and started praying again. I also bought myself a Bible (KJV) & started reading it, and realised it's a lot more profound than I realised when I was a child. I started thirsting for more knowledge and understanding, and came across this channel in my searches. I have watched SO much on this channel, and have gained SO much understanding (particularly your videos on The Trinity, which I have watched over & over again, until I think I really DO understand it - thank you SO much). I have also started going to my local 'Church Of England' / 'Anglican' church , and it's been BEAUTIFUL for me (on my second visit, they even asked me to do a Bible reading, which I was delighted to do). It's a lovely church & lovely congregation, though I'm saddened that this beautiful Victorian era church built for hundreds of people only gets an attendance of about 12 - 15 people on a Sunday morning.
I feel I'm in the 'RIGHT' church, but I still have so many questions about The Bible, and after the services it's difficult to pin anybody down to discuss the questions I have as a result of my Bible study. It's NOT a fault of the people. It's just a fault of this church struggling to keep going & keep it's doors open. I really wish there was somebody here like you, that could sacrifice the time to help me come to the understanding that I wish. Any advice would be appreciated.
DaisyPumpkin23 I will be praying but, what sort of questions do you got bud maybe some of us could help.
Through skepticism & Doubt I facilitate the merit & equity &
And total exercise of all virtue through Faith!!
This is happy news indeed!! I'm so glad to have a new brother/sister in Christ!
Such very happy news! Praise God, for He's called you to Him.
I recommend that you start by not taking on a Protestant or Catholic bias, but read the Scriptures (pray pray pray) and read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. They were taught directly by the Apostles. You will learn what the Apostles passed on (which is what is called 'tradition' in how the Church worshiped and what it believed. It is important to ground yourself in this, as it helps you understand the Bible. Then find a Church leader to help you understand it more fully. But don't immediately go the Protestant traditionalist points of view. The true Church has been around since Pentecost, and existed for over 1500 years before Protestantism even came into the picture. But most importantly, seek God and His guidance.
Hello Shnobo. Thank you for your reply. The first major question I have relates to understanding that The Bible is the COMPLETE understanding of the path to salvation through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Though the heart may be 'deceitful', I truly 'feel' (& through prayer) that (despite only having read the 4 gospels and the books of Genesis and Exodus so far - I am continuing reading) that God, through The Bible, has told us EVERYTHING we need to know.
I am also aware that there are many false churches (Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists etc) who believe that The Bible is 'incomplete' and that further 'prophets' are to come afterwards. In my limited reading of The Bible so far, I have only come across one passage (Luke 16: 16) that that presents a case that God's word is COMPLETE (and there shall be no prophets after John - if my understanding of this is correct ?), yet I know that the false churches will dispute the 'interpretation' of that verse.
Can you give me any additional CONFIRMATION that NO further 'revelation' is necessary after The Bible ?
I'm GREATLY enjoying The Mark Series Mike! I've started going through them a SECOND time... This time with my wife & daughter. You've made me see things, in the Gospel of Mark, that I hadn't noticed before.
The fact that Jesus's own family did not believe in Him gives me so much hope. I am so thankful this was included in Scripture. I've always felt like failure in my family because many of them have little interest in living for Christ. Maybe it's not all my fault. (I'm sure some, but at least not completely.)
Your true family is found in Christ.
Yesica1993 I agree too... my immediate family too.. I’ll pray for you..
@Peter Xuereb what makes you think that?
After a lifetime of new age theology, your series sure is a breath of fresh air. God is good. 🤍
Your next logical step will ultimately be into the One True Catholic Church
I'm a catholic and I'm ashamed of my church for Mary's dogmas. Obviously Jesus had brothers. Not only that's what the Bible clearly teavhes but also if Mary and Joseph did not have multiple children, they would be considered a cursed family. Throughout the old testament we see that children are blessings and that wife and husband are meant to have sex and have children, this is God's first command. It wasn't until Catholic church went through it's own sexual revolution and withdrawn from anything sexual in nature that it concluded that priests ought to not marry and that Mary obviously never had sex too. And now even though we grew so much smarter, we can never go back and change it. The reason why we catholics ended up with a false dogma, is because we have dogmatised ourselves into a corner. If a Pope or any council ever tried to reboot Mary's cult they would've destroyed the church or at the very least split it in two. Church is much more interested in keeping their unity than in fixing wrong teachings. Nobody will ever go there, we are forced to uphold this ridiculous heresy forever. For that, I'm sorry protestant brothers. Fortunately, it's mot really an issue of salvation. I don't think belief in Mary's virginity can destroy God's grace. Many catholics like myself turn our backs on absurds of our church's theology and we try to save as many brothers as possible, teaching them you can only be saved by grace, through faith, outside of any works. Peace!
You are not Catholic. To be Catholic you have to accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. Your pride puts you above the Holy Spirit and that's a very unhealthy place to be.
@@alephnaught8343
Not sure what a papist is. But is English your first language? I never said that Catholics have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I stated what was required to be Catholic.
Amen
I wonder why Christ gave his mother to St John on the cross. In 1st century Judaism, you think one of Mary's other kids would have stepped up. Hold on Mary's only child was on the cross and God gave the disciple he loved a Mother. Christ was born through Mary and we as Catholics find Christ in and through her. Hail Mary Full of Grace...
@@rd77513no. John 7:5. They didn’t believe
Very glad I watched this. I'm one of those people who scrutinizes *everything* it seems. Like so many of the promises of the Lord in the OT. For decades my mind has posited, "yeah, but He was talking to Israel and not ME." ha ha It can get maddening, man, analyzing every single detail. It's contributed to a great amount of doubt, and I do mean *great*, in my life as to where I stand with Him and which promises are indeed for each of us individually and which are meant for Israel. Your videos are a huge help, Mike.
Keep in mind that the "nations" and "peoples" are also mentioned frequently by the prophets, whether for good or ill (depending on their own faithfulness to justice and righteousness, as well as whether they blessed or cursed Israel). That would include you, as you are a person among "the nations."
Also remember this: the role Israel plays in history is to bring about God's blessings upon all the families of the earth (Gen 12:1-3; Rom 3, 11). Even though God dispersed and disinherited the nations at Babel (Gen 11) and created Israel through Abraham as his own possession (Gen 12, 15), he always remained nearby to be found by any who would seek after him, and always planned to call them back home to himself through Jesus the Messiah (Isa 2; Jer 31; Acts 17:16-34; Rev 4-5).
Whatever God has promised Jacob he offers to all of us through adoption. Jacob seeks a country, we all seek a country.
Accepting that Mary had more children, which implies that she did not remain a virgin for the rest of her life, does not seem to represent a problem for anyone but Catholics. They give too much importance to the fact that Mary was a virgin, and the fact of acknowledging that she did not stay that way seems to detract from her sanctity, in the eyes of Catholics. The fact that Mary was the woman chosen by God to come Himself to Earth as a man to save us shows how holy she was here, and even if she had more children and stopped being a virgin it does not change this at all. Sadly the Catholic Church twisted the whole issue with her to the point that they worship her and give her a place even above God himself to fall into idolatry.
It’s not necessary that they care about the virginity itself, but that the Roman Catholic Church might be wrong about this issue, which would cause its doctrine of infallibility to crumble.
Exactly there dug themselves into a hole.
The more internet becomes available the more people can study and look at scholorship and see opinions
Not only that Francis. Is showing the problem with there doctrines
@@r.a.panimefan2109only issue is you cannot prove Mary had other children from Bible alone. The brothers of Jesus can be
- Mary and Joseph’s children
- Joseph’s children from previous marriage
- Close family members. Ie. Cousins
These are all possibilities and you can’t prove nature of their relationship from Bible alone. You can certainly make assumptions and pretend you are right.
@walkingtherange5680 yes u can.
The plane reading says so.
U have to read theology into text to suggest cousins.
Also to say know is oft a euphemism of intercourse.
Joeseph did know mary till after christ was born.
What else does that mean.
It says it was brothers and sisters.
There are actually some catholic scholars that admit it.
So just stop lol u can glean all the info nessesary
@@r.a.panimefan2109 I said it’s a possibility. If you are going to settle on one definition, you have to rule out the other possibilities first. The Greek word used to described brethren can also be used to describe people of the same family. In Genesis 13:8-13 Abraham and Lot are described as brethren even though they have an uncle and nephew relationship. Same Greek word Adelphoi is used.
So if you read brethren of Jesus, how do you conclude they are Mary’s children even though there are other possibilities that are equally plausible? I’m not saying you are wrong, you just haven’t proven your case.
I follow evidence. I appreciate that you do too and you give it. Evidence is why I reject Catholicism. I believe the gospel. I don’t believe their institutional teachings.
Are you aware of the Marcion controversy with the Gospels? I also am more rational but am Christian. The Gospels likely were not known until the 2nd century, No church fathers mention them, until Irenaeus. That's really late.
I totally agree, Pastor Mike. The internet is indeed, the modern synagogue. It’s probably the best way in my opinion, to share the truth. Whether it is video, or typed out where anyone can watch/read, it’s possible to impact innumerable lives even long after you’re gone. These are times where all should be so bold to use this avenue to it’s fullest!
Not to mention. Any can do a internet search on greek
If something like a tradition doesn't feel right. Greek and scholorship
We live I. A time when it's easy to learn and spread new thought.
The Sabbath begins at sundown Friday because Genesis says, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
Maybe the author of Genesis described the demarcation of creation epochs this way because his readers already believed that the new day began at sundown?
Or maybe it’s a coincidence and Genesis’ point is to draw the reader to the Hebrew etymology of _erev_ as chaos and _boker_ as order?
Thank you for the sober reminder. Genesis is regarded as open to any interpretation as long as such interpretation is in line with the secular world. However, as you have rightly stated, Genesis would be taken as scripture that explains the need for Christ. Without this foundation for the Gospel, all sorts of heresies can be generated without noticing the glaring contradiction between the start of God's interaction with man, and the sound of the last trumpet.
@@l-cornelius-dol or maybe you are confused about which parts of scripture you would like to edit.
@@l-cornelius-dol 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, and for training in righteousness.” The “author” of Genesis is God, though the one writing His words was human. Something to consider!
@@ZombieDelicacy : Of course, and I completely agree. But the human author, whom God works through in cooperation not by means of robotic control, exerts their influence as well. I was only pointing out that God is often doing something much deeper in his revelation, via Hebrew, than might seem obvious to the modern reader in English. For example, the core meaning of _Yom_ which is rendered as "day" in Genesis 1, is simply "a finite period of time" -- do a word study on the _Hebrew_ word (easy with a Strong's Concordance online) and you'll be amazed how often it is translated as "year", "years", "time", many days, and other variants like that. In fact, the same word in the same immediate context is used in Genesis 2, and there it incontestably refers to all of the creation "days" of Genesis 1. Something else to consider. 🙂
Sooo good! I always love your prayers at the end too. Thanks for always including that part.
Here is how we know Mary had children of her own:
The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
The same word for brothers in Matthew 13:55 is the same word used for brothers of Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:18
There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. Never used for the brothers of Jesus.
itisnow if I’m not mistaken that tradition that Joseph had other children before he married Mary has no evidence for it. Scholars reject it.
How could David’s parents take a vow of chastity when David had brothers?
@@Justas399 After his parents had other children obviously! But the parents couldn't keep it and David the last child was born. The community teased David all his life for being illegitimate which is why he said in sin did my mother conceive me. That had nothing to do with original sin as Jews don't believe in original sin. I'm just saying that's what Jews think. Ezekiel 18 v 20. "The soul who sins it shall die. The son will not share the guilt of the father." What govt executes a serial killer and then also kills a child? The orthodox church has never believed in inherited guilt only that we inherit a sin nature. Protestants inherited faulty doctrine from the RCC. Also if protestants hate tradition then they should never call the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as these gospels have no name. They should call them A, B, C and D. Also please use just the bible to come up with Trinity. I guarantee 100% you will fail. Protestants are dishonest!
itisnow if you don’t believe we “inherited a sin nature “ then what should I make of this?Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-
- Romans 5:12
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
- Romans 5:19
itisnow how do you know what happens to babies who die? It is true we are not guilty of the specific sin of Adam but we are all fallen from birth because of his sin. Thus the doctrine of original sin.
itisnow Mary was a virgin before Christ was born but not after. Matthew 13:55-56 proves she had children of her own.
The trinity doctrine is supported by Genesis 1:1-3, 27, John 1:1,14 and Acts 5:3-4
Great teaching, Mike! I'm going to relisten and take notes on the whole Mary and Jesus's brothers thing. Thank you!
Pastor Mike, o so enjoy your teaching. What makes it so strong is your reliance on scriptura. You draw succinct nexus lines to uphold doctrine like few others. God bless you and your ministry.
Hey Larry, Mike wanders from the Scriptures a lot. He claims to be a "sola scriptura" guy, but Mike adds SO MUCH to the Bible that is not found there. Just a word of advice. Read the Bible for yourself, and see if it always agrees with what Mike claims that it says. Mike gets a lot correct, but he also makes up a bunch of stuff. Mike seems like a nice guy, so nothing against Mike, but the facts are the facts: Mike adds his own false teachings to the Bible.
@@HowToBeChristian - You are correct. And I have caught some errors in his theology. But he's developed a following that believe he is infallible. As a human, the odds are that some of what he presents is incorrect. It's up to the followers to study and read the Bible and to have a foundation in truth in order to catch these. Not follow willy-nilly. Even Paul wrote how some said they were of Paul, others of Peter etc... and how wrong this was. We are of Christ!
The following "I am of Mike Winger" has developed, and that is never a good thing. I like him a lot, believe he is very sincere. But I check out what he says because he is not, as I said before, infallible. And his teachings are not 100% correct.
@@rafaelcarbone1387 Glad to hear that you caught on to Mike's false teachings as well! And yes, he definitely has a following of people who blindly believe him; hopefully they'll learn to fact check Mr. Winger on his false teachings as well.
U people who responded to me sound like u know a lot more than Mike, but o ly appear to make vague insinuations about him with nothing substantial.Are you plants?
@@larrysergent5478 Hey Larry, I would never say we "know a lot more than Mike". What we know is that what Mike is saying is false in many situations. That is why it is best to fact check Mike on his teachings, because he gets some stuff correct, and some stuff incorrect. Feel free to check out our channel for more information; Mike recently tried to cover up facts we shared about him.
I was raised in a denomination that is very anti-Catholic and rejects the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet I heard them also make the "Jesus' brothers were Joseph's sons from another marriage" claim.
Love your work. New subscriber. Just a thought here - just because pottery newer than a town, is discovered IN that town, doesn't change the history OF the town. An extreme example is discovering a pencil at a dig site in Egypt and trying to say Egypt was founded in the 1500s. I take many historical dating methods with a grain of salt (or salt block in cases) since most times folks want to stamp a date on something they're trying to prove an existing agenda.
“Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor. If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up.”
Ecclesiastes 4:9-10
Lovin story time with Mike, teaching story time with Jesus
Wow, I appreciate the encouragement to preach in the digital synagogues. I think there's something to that, although I do want also to promote in-person engagement because something gets lost without that complete human interaction. Keep it up, brother.
9:45 Yeah, God is qualified to teach about the religion He invented...Such a strange reality that at any moment Jesus would have been barred from teaching at the synagogue...
You got me even taking notes!!! Blessings from Spain 💕
This study was really really good. Thank you so much.
Thank you so much. I appreciated every word.
You mentioned that within our culture it is the norm for children to to deviate from the career path of their parents. I'd like to show where that former tradition still lives and is commonly understood to be this way.
I'm now a Tradesman, many of my friends are also Tradesman, many of them also had fathers who were Tradesmen. In the Trades at least, it is still very common for children to be taught their father's trade and grow up doing that. My son is 10 and I take him to all my side jobs so he can learn and already have a means to support himself even before he graduates High School
Of my friends, the most skilled ones all grew up working alongside their fathers in their respective trades since they were in Junior High or Highschool.
I've heard ot said that faith isnt believing God can but believing he will. I disagree. I believe faith is believing that whether he does or does not he is right. And you trust his answer. Even when you cant understand it.
ahh.. thats quite shocking lol, knowing that Mary was mentioned in Mark 6:3 because Joseph could be dead.. brilliant study brother! :)
Thanks for shedding light on Luke 4:23-27. I've always wondered what the Zarephath and Naaman examples meant to them
I think there are two good arguments that Mary was in fact a perpetual virgin. The first argument is that the Scriptural support for Mary being the mother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon simply isn't in the text. Does the Bible ever say that Mary and Joseph had intimate relations after the birth of Jesus? Does it ever say that Mary became pregnant a second, third, fourth, or fifth time? Does it ever say that James, Joseph, Judas, or Simon are the sons of Joseph or the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus? No it doesn't, and if any of these were the case it would be odd to leave these significant facts out considering that Mary is after all the mother of Jesus Christ. In fact, to the contrary, it does say that James was the son of Alpheaus (or Clopas) and that Mary the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joseph.
In the Gospel of John, we read that while on the cross Jesus tells his mother, referring to John the 'beloved disciple', "Woman, behold thy son!" and then to John, "Behold, thy mother!" in which he entrusts his mother to the care of John. This makes sense in the context of Jewish tradition and law where women had to be in the care of men, since Jesus will no longer be able to care for her and presumably Joseph her wife has already passed away. However this does not make sense if Jesus has four other brothers by Mary, or even more unlikely if Mary had remarried. The best explanation of this verse is that Jesus was her only child, and Joseph her only lawful husband.
Your argument that since in Mark 6:3 it uses the word "brother" that they must be full-blood biological brothers, I find particularly flimsy. In the parallel reading of Matthew 13:55 it reads "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" Are we then to also suppose a literal reading here that Jesus is the full-blood biological son of Joseph the carpenter? Obviously not, as Christians must necessarily believe Jesus to be the son of God. So by insisting upon such a literalistic (and dare I say dogmatic) reading of the text, you can if you wish go so far as to nullify the very divinity of Jesus. The greater context, both textual and historical are needed in order to derive the correct understanding.
This brings me to my second argument, which is the historical argument. The perpetual virginity of Mary was attested as being believed by the original fathers and doctors of the Church such as St. Irenaeus, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, by the traditions of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as by many of the founders of the Protestant reformation, such as Martin Luther of Lutheranism, Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer of Anglicanism, and John Wesley of Methodism, and other reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli. Why does your doctrine outweigh the traditional teachings, understandings, and interpretations of all of these testimonies and arguments throughout history? Was the Church constantly in error for nearly 2000 years from the Resurrection until now? Why then would Christ promise in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."? Has the entire Church been deceived up until the private revelation of Mike Winger? Surely Christ is not a liar.
Great response, brother. I do agree with Mike, we need to let the text speak for itself. And I believe a faithful reading of the text itself, without preconceived doctrines, will certainly point one towards an understanding of Mary's perpetual virginity. I'll briefly recount a fascinating teaching by Brant Pitre, which I believe he explores more deeply in his book 'Jesus And The Jewish Roots Of The Virgin Mary'. Brant calls for us to engage in a closer examination to the text of Luke 1:31-34. Verse 31, the angel Gabriel speaks to Mary: "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." Notice how Gabriel never claims that Mary was already pregnant, merely that she would (in the future!) conceive a child. Now, in light of this, why would a betrothed woman (presumably with the intention of having children in the future) react with such incredulity at a message that she (in the future) would conceive a child? Mary responded (v. 34 ESV): "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" It seems apparent that Mary had taken a vow of virginity, effective even in marriage. Now many protestant apologists will claim that no such vow exists in Scripture, however, it is mentioned in Numbers 30:13: "Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void."
I hope that with honest and faithful study of the Bible, more of our brothers and sisters will come to the knowledge of the overwhelmingly biblical basis for the Catholic faith. Blessings!
A small five cents to add about the Catholic apologetic about Jesus'brothers and sisters being their alleged cousins. They (a fb dialogue page) seem to identify Mary as described in Mark 6 and Matthew 13 as a similar Mary , also described as the mother of Joses and James, also described elsewhere through the gospels. (Mark 15;40,47 i.e.) I find it a strained possibility because Jesus' brothers seemed to not follow him during the gospel events, whilst Mary, the brother of Joses certainly did. To be somewhat facetious it also makes Mary seem to be a bit of a hillbilly. You know, a "I am Daryll, that is my brother Daryll and my other brother Daryll kind of thing, although I guess it could be that the other Mary was the wife of an unknown Joseph's brother'. Bit too much mental gymnastics imo.
Catholics want to say that Joseph had kids with another wife before Mary but their nativity scenes still only have Joseph Mary and Jesus. Where was James when Jesus was born? Wouldn't these children from another marriage have gone with them to Bethlehem and Egypt? Not to mention that it says Joseph didn't lay with Mary until after Jesus was born, which means he did lay with her after Jesus was born. That is perfectly appropriate. Two married people having sex is a wonderful thing. Neither of them was commanded to abstain for the rest of their lives.
You: Not to mention that it says Joseph didn't lay with Mary until after Jesus was born, which means he did lay with her after Jesus was born.
Me: No it doesn't. Scripture does work that way consistently.
@@bridgefin for example?
If not, then where did Jesus' brothers and sisters come from all of a sudden? You defend your tradition against Scripture. I change my beliefs to match Scripture.
@@dahelmang
You asked: for example?
Me: Here are three:
1. 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
2. 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
3. 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
You: If not, then where did Jesus' brothers and sisters come from all of a sudden?
Me: Not sure, bro but I do know that both then and now the word "brother" can mean any kind of relative, in-law, friend, or associate. One thing we do know is that Scripture puts none of these brothers in the womb of Mary.
@@bridgefin Michal had no children until the day of her death. That was the period of time she was able to have children. After that she would not have the opportunity. Joseph did not lay with Mary until after Jesus was born. That was the period of time he chose not to sleep with his wife. After that there was no reason to refrain.
Timothy was to read the Bible publicly until Paul arrived. That was to prepare people for Paul's arrival. The focus in the instruction is on the period of time until Paul arrived so his trip would be more productive. Joseph did not lay with Mary until after Jesus was born. The focus is on the period of time Joseph refrained from having sex with his wife. There was no reason to continue refraining after Jesus was born.
If you look in context you will see Jesus will reign until He has put His enemies under His feet, then He will hand the kingdom to the Father. So even though it does not say until after it is actually saying something very similar to Joseph not laying with Mary until after Jesus was born.
Seems like the word brother is different from the word relative here:
"16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. - Luke 21:16
So when we see both brothers and sisters in this verse:
"Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. - Mark 6:3
That certainly seems to say that Joseph and Mary went on having kids. And why not? No one told them not to. The only problem is your tradition demands you ignore the clear implications of the word of God.
@@dahelmang
You: Michal had no children until the day of her death. That was the period of time she was able to have children. After that she would not have the opportunity.
Me: So when Scripture says that nothing happened UNTIL a point in time it is saying NOTHING about the post period. When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary UTIL the birth of Jesus he is saying nothing about the period after. He is just confirming that Jesus was the result of the virgin birth and those the one prophesized.
You: If you look in context you will see Jesus will reign until He has put His enemies under His feet, then He will hand the kingdom to the Father.
Me: Except that he is the king ad will reign forever.
You: That certainly seems to say that Joseph and Mary went on having kids. And why not? No one told them not to. The only problem is your tradition demands you ignore the clear implications of the word of God.
Me: It is you who is oblivious to the implications of Scripture. Focus on Mary's question to Gabriel for a hint. Focus on the meaning of the word "brother" and stop implying that there is only one answer. Stop ignoring those of the early church who lived with Mary and knew there were no other children. And find where Scripture puts a baby into Mary and stop trying to do it yourself. And finally listen to the founders of your faith tradition who disagree with you.
IT CAN BE FAITH! Over the past 35 years I've seen my faith change radically, like day and night. The faith in my early years produced very little fruit. Today I see tangible results, everyday. I don't live in the times of the apostles, I promise :-) One of the key factors is stand on God's word no matter what you experience, and never run with emotions or thoughts that go against the word. Believe God, completely.
Wonderful message! Thank you!
This teaching is powerful. Your closing remarks took me by suprise.
Thank you for being accurate when representing the Catholic position even though you disagree with it.
TreKater joh 17 17 A cult will always promote the cult. I’ll go to God’s Word and ask it’s author, the Holy Spirit for understanding.
TreKater joh 17 17 I know it makes Catholics feel superior to think so, but there are far less non-Catholic denominations than the RCC says, and far less disagreement on the doctrines central to salvation. Truth divides, haven’t you heard?
@@bellalugosi5853 True. I wonder why they grossly exaggerate the numbers. Plus, many of the churches placed under "Protestant" don't even follow Sola Scriptura.
Daniel Ntoto It’s an obvious lie, but so is 98% of RCC teaching.
@@bellalugosi5853 - Individual interpretation. Which makes it appear the Holy Spirit has a different exegesis for each person.
God is not a God of confusion. The chaos of over 31,000 denominations (and who knows how many in them ''hear' the voice of God differently than the denomination they are a part of) should prove that your interpretation is not necessarily led by the Holy Spirit. Be careful. I've seen some get really far off thinking they are hearing the voice of God. The devil transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive. Be careful my sister. You are walking on thin ice.
I would love to know where your church is, where can we come hear you preach
I think its clear from that passage that jesus mother had children.very well explained.
We can pray that God changes the one we care about's heart. By the power of The Holy Spirit God is well able to change a person's heart.
Thank you!
With stating that the etymology of a word and the meaning of it is not directly connected, this is still considerable:
The word adelphós is thought to be inherited from a Proto-Indo-European word meaning something like 'same womb', and in Greek to be equivalent with ha- ('same, one') + delphús ('womb').
message received :) thank you
Who were His brothers, and why don't we know them by name? And why did Jesus give Mary over to John if he had brothers that could take care of her?
Seethi C - Absolutely. Jewish tradition was very clear about sons looking after their mothers. Hence we know Mary only had one son. Also these “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
Because you didn't read the passage.
@@candyclews4047 No. Jesus' brother James, at the very least, was a well referenced person of history.
@@itsthedude3138 The key is that there was more than one 'Mary'. Scripture tells us when the 'Mary' is the mother of Jesus (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) or whether it is a different 'Mary" - as below:
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40)
What you might find interesting is that the earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions.
@@candyclews4047 I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying other explanations of James the bother of Jesus, such as historian Josephus or even James' own writings are not earlier than the Protoevangelium?
is Mark 6 and Luke 4 supposed to be the same account? Mark 6 has the disciples following him, but in Luke 4 they don't quite appear to be part of his ministry yet. How is this understood or resolved?
22:00 Family
45:22 Marian
Temple vs Synagogue. In the Temple they do worship where priests do their thing with sacrifices, and in the synagogue they gather together and preach and study.
We have this today. The Temple is the catholic church where there is a memorial sacrifice and worship. In the Protestant church we have a gathering and studying and preaching.
Agreed, so there is no such thing as a Protestant “church” if it doesn’t conduct proper worship Jn 6 51-58, so they attend synagogue for prayer and teaching, but no worship
@@geoffjs
I agree There is one Christian church and it was established by God. Anything else is a creation of sinners in opposition to God and his only church.
Mike. Thank you for highlighting why Jesus stopped reading Isaiah 61 just where He did. I have sometimes wondered about that. Now, it seems so clear and obvious.
God bless your good work in His name. Amen.
In the Catholic Church we pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters, that they too may come to know the fullness of the faith.
In the Protestant Church they proclaim that Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon and I rarely hear a prayer for them. Never referred to as brother and sisters in Christ. Criticizing the child molestation among priests when it's been shown that in their Protestant churches the same abuse is worse!
I can see the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Catholic Church in this video. It is strongly biased by the Protestant "tradition".
And seems to forget that for the first 1500+ years it was The Church (together with the Orthodox Church). Were those years full of false Christians? Did they die in vain when they were martyred? Had Jesus abandoned his Church for over 1500 years and allowed the gates of hell to prevail against it? Were the Catholic Bishops that through the Holy Spirit decided which books went into the New Testament inspired, or misled by the tradition they used? Or should we better accept Luther, trying to have the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation removed from the Canon? Wasn't that a good sign that perhaps the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding Him?
When exactly will people search without bias for the Truth? Study the History of the Church without bias for the Truth? Or is continued listening to misinformation on the Catholic Church necessary for the Protestant Church to continue to grow and thrive even into more denominations at the expense of Truth a necessity to promote falsehood?
I really would like an honest answer.
I think the first thing you should look up is when the Orthodox Church actually left, and why. This has nothing to do with Protestants because we didn’t exist yet.
@@HueyBob24 - when I say catholic I do not mean necessarily Roman Catholic. Catholic means universal. I attend an Orthodox Church. So I'm quite familiar with the schism over the Bishop of Rome's rulership. And you are correct, Protestants didn't even exist then. So where was the Church? It certainly didn't cease to exist between the 1st and the 16th centuries.
If I were you, this would definitely make me wonder. Because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Protestants couldn't have restored it by stripping away all the doctrines of the Early Church..
leavesnpetals I’ll admit I don’t know much at all about the Orthodox Church, nor do I think that we tried to wipe away 1500 years of previous theology. We agree on most, and we can argue bias for an eternity, we are still family, and I do not include those that are heretical and preach a different Jesus. So I’ll ask then, why would you feel it is so important to believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, when it doesn’t say that in the Bible Matt 1:25, it also does not speak of this in the Old Testament. As you say we are steeped in our Protestant tradition, but I don’t see what you mean by tradition, when I only follow the Bible. As Jesus taught against the traditions of the Pharisees and the laws made up by man and not God. I would appreciate an honest assessment of my beliefs, and I’m sorry if I came across snarky.
leavesnpetals I do pray for Catholics, by which I should just say Roman Catholicism, my best friend is one, but trying to get any dialog out of her is impossible. My argument with Rome and the abuse issue is that by allowing marriage much of the sexual immorality would not exist, it exists in our church as well, as it is everywhere in this fallen world, but when the top guy who says he speaks for God does nothing and sweeps it under the rug , it’s not wrong for everyone to be angry., and want justice for those that were abused. I also believe that God is shaking the whole church body and cleaning house, and bringing all these things into the light.
@@HueyBob24 = I agree with everything you write. Except that the Pope finally did acknowledge the problem, make restitution (though no amount of money compensates for the damage that has been perpetrated by molestation). And you are correct, sadly in this fallen world the problem is not catholic, alone. The Protestant Church has been equally guilty. Although I don't believe it's because of vows of celibacy as much as it is out of a lack of respect for another person and for God. More often than not they are males preying on young boys, and how do we address this issue?
But I believe we are on the same page.
God bless you Heather.
I can’t get this to load under the listen link in the BibleThinker app and if I do the video my teen with A.D.D will watch the video and not get anything out of it and the only way for us all to hear it well enough is to mirror it to the television. Edit: sorry for all the information but I know there are people who would just tell me to watch the video or flip my phone over.
@Mike Winger I don’t understand why Mary would think Jesus was insane when she knew he is the son of God and would be the savior of his people.
According to Mark, was Jesus’ mother, Mary, among the family that thought he was crazy? How could that be if she was visited by the angel and knew of and accepted the miraculous conception and knew he was the son of God?
All the original Protestants - Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Wesley, etc. - all proclaimed the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity and so did their followers. Which Protestant sect changed this and when?
When they started reading Scripture and realized it wasn't in there and was added by mere men.
@@dahelmang
In other words, neither Luther nor Calvin were equipped by God to start Protestantism because God equips those whom he calls. Therefore Protestantism is of men and not of God. It exists in opposition to God. Thank you for that insight and now do the right thing and close your doors and return to God.
@@bridgefin let me get this straight. You are saying because these men were not perfect they were not called by God? That's not how Catholics treat the Popes. Protestantism is a return to Scripture after 1500 years of men adding their own traditions. Luther and Calvin etc were not Apostles. Their writings were not inspired. They were used by God to accomplish a task. Luther was a Catholic and wanted to hold onto the traditions he found familiar. Just read the 95 theses. They were written by a Catholic who was just starting to question what he was told. Just like Catholics today with the crazy Francis you have in office now.
@@dahelmang
You: You are saying because these men were not perfect they were not called by God?
Me: You missed the point completely. Not perfection, but being equipped by God. If God CALLS you to reform his church and start it new he does not let you teach heresy. Jesus promised that the spirit of truth would be with the apostles forever just for this reason.
There are many biblical verses which affirm this but here is just one:
2 Timothy 3:17 ESV That the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
So, if God did not equip Luther and Calvin with the truth, then he didn't send them. And if he didn't send them then someone ELSE did or they sent themselves. In any case their effort would be thus proven to be either man made or satanic inspired.
BUT maybe Protestantism is God's new choice and Luther and Calvin WERE equipped. THEN you are all in heresy to your founders. In any event modern Protestantism is either proven to be man made or currently in heresy.
@@bridgefin you just took a verse completely out of context. Let me show you.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The emphasis here is on Scripture equipping the man of God. That's the whole point of the Reformation. You Catholics added to Scripture just like the Pharisees. Treating your traditions as more important than the words of God.
As far as Biblical parallels I would point to Josiah and Hezekiah. Josiah brought the people of Israel back to God's Law. Hezekiah tore down the high places where people had been led into paganism. That's what the Reformation was about: going back to the word of God and abandoning pagan additions. If it took more than one generation in the Old Testament why would you expect it to be completed in one generation in the 1500s?
You are not using Biblical standards. I don't know where you get these ideas from, but it's not from God's word.
*MARK 6:3: BROTHERS OF JESUS, BUT NOT SONS OF MARY*
_You keep using that verse. I don't think it means what you think it means._
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3)
It seems odd, but no verse of scripture ever called anyone a son or daughter of Mary except Jesus. And for good reason: 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.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions or want more information. Thanks.
Mary definitely wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born. Think about basic human anatomy.
Wayne Hampson - Think of the power of God. You are looking at this through mans' eyes. Since when does basic human anatomy form a child without having the male sperm penetrating the female egg? Yet it happened in Jesus' case. No sperm, a miraculous conception.
Who are the sisters of Jesus
Great video
Thank you so very much 😊❤!
Can you provide examples of Christian writers throughout history that held to your view of this issue?
St Augustine. John Calvin. John Owens. RC Sproul. James White
@@andrewstone3502 When did Augustine claim that Mary had other children? Everyone else here is after the Reformation (aka, only the later fourth Christian history).
@@Seethi_C Which origin and all the church father who denied the apocryphal texts Augustine's text never had nor any manuscript contained the idea Mary was always a virgin. Origen did hold to the position that Mary was a perpetual virgin per his homily on Luke 7:4
@@Seethi_C nobody believed the idea of Mary being perpetually a virgin until Protoevangelium of James. Which is like other forgeries trying to capitalize on an apostle
Like most Catholic works it was added and change to fit the needs of the church. Hats books actions and beliefs to force doctrines that control the freedom of believers. Peter denied christ 3 times.... Yet they say Christ built his church on only him. And he answered to the apostle James...please pray and ask god for guidance then read your Bible Sir.
At least some of what is accepted doctrine is informed by the disputed books though right?
@@veritasmuy2407 I understand there are contradictions but that wasn't the question. Thank you for answering though. Probably the only answer I'll get. Lol
Couldn't be bothered to look it up! 🤣😂🤣😂
You are video game designer? What game you did already?
HEARD IT
In my long life I have met not one atheist who became unbelieving due to emotions.
Really? I have met many, many, many atheists whose core emotion is rage. Usually at their father. Which in turn seems to bleed over into rage at God.
Mike cannot prove Mary had other children by referring to Jesus's brothers in the context of the family. For brothers can mean fellow believers or cousins in familial terms as well.
Mike proposes a false dichotomy where he says do we go with tradition or what the scriptures teach. For Mike has not demonstrated Jesus had biological brothers, but only provides soft rhetorical arguments which hint at one conclusion, rather than another conclusion.
Also Mike himself falls into a fallacy of introducing a false oral tradition of Jesus having biological brothers which is not found in the scriptures. Or Mike misreads several texts and ignores the oral tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Mike seems to want to replace the true Catholic faith with his own version of Mike's faith. I trust the Christ who controls the 2000 years of church history which is thoroughly catholic, rather than the fallible musings of a private interpreter of the sacred text.
John Martin - Amen! Well put and very accurate comment.
The plain reading of the text is that they are Jesus' brothers. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the text doesn't mean what it says. I don't see much proof in the text that they are cousins, or that Mary was perpetually a virgin. Maybe there is evidence elsewhere, but it's simply not in the Bible.
@@snippletrap Protestants like Mike fail to embrace the necessary consequent ambiguity within the scriptural text that follows from scripture alone. The text can be read in more than one way when the text is taken away from the church that wrote it and the tradition that was delivered from Christ and the apostles. Mikes presentation only further highlights the many weaknesses in the scripture alone doctrine of evangelical Protestantism.
By Protestants ignoring the tradition that Mary remained a virgin, there is no proof texts for Mary as remaining a virgin or not. The protestants know this so they back up their arguments with empty rhetoric to sway the believers into the protestant position. The Protestants have no proof for their contention that Mary had other children.
@Splat the roadkill Cat The series is not required. God can make and exception to the rule in the mother of Jesus.
John Martin can you please point out to me in scripture where you would pray the rosary and revere Mary, in which we pray to her to intercede our prayers to God?
So what was Mary doing at this point. 🤔
@@veritasmuy2407 oh yes, Jesus asked that he look after her. Thank you.
Mary is Ever-Virgin even in the Orthodox religion
Sylvia H - Amen!
Sylvia H That’s bc Orthodox and Roman Catholicism are the same thing the only dispute, being the authority of the Papacy or Pope?i mean correct me if I’m wrong.
22:00 for me
Great ! Great ! Great !
I always thought of “the son of Mary” as Mark knowing that Jesus was/is the Son of God and that he didn’t want to give biological rights to Joseph concerning Jesus.
The usual.... bagging Catholicism.... just dreadful 🧐🧐🧐🧐
How is he bagging on them? I simply questioning their Authority and accuracy of scripture?
There are the first traditional and u came way way later so distorted !!!!!
One true holy catholic church have u heard that statement true n Catholic 🙏🏻
@@MDD-ut8wo spitting out blind rhetoric is not an answer to my simple question. Is questioning the validity of some of the Catholic claims "bagging" on them?
The scripture is accurate from day one. It’s the others who change it to suit n interpret this modern world just to sync it to their ways n thinking 🤔
@@MDD-ut8wo you are avoiding the question again and masking it as you making a point. The validity of scripture is NOT in question. Only the claims bases on said scripture made by the the Catholic church. So I ask again, how is he "bashing" Catholics? It's ok to say you don't like the topic and/or the points made. But if you say that he is "bashing" and can't prove it you are either lying or failing to properly listen/understand what he is saying. If you call yourself a Christian or even a Jesus following person it is your responsibility to be honest and humble. Don't be ashamed or too proud to say you made a mistake. It's okay because we all do it sometimes and will likely do it again in the future. I've done it more than a few times on TH-cam in comments.
Thank you
Apparently Joseph and Jesus were engineers in their field of carpentry They were not loewly type carpentry people.
Thank you.
She couldn't have been a virgin forever,virginity is a this layer of skin that must remain in tact to be considered a virgin,well in pretty sure when Jesus came out the birth canal,that was the end of that.And since it is the custom of the Jews and all peoples that the marriage must be consecrated, through the joining of two becoming one,it would be safe to say Joseph didn't stand around twittling his thumbs for 20 years.hopefully we can agree on that.
It was not a normal birth. Scripture said that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. If he is born AFTER he breaks that skin then she is no longer a virgin and he is no longer the Messiah.
You: it would be safe to say Joseph didn't stand around twittling his thumbs for 20 years.hopefully we can agree on that.
Me: Maybe safe but not true. Even Luther did not agree with that.
@@veritasmuy2407
You: but after Jesus physical pushed thru the birth canal, Mary was no longer a virgin.
Me: Simple birth mechanics. If giving birth makes you a non virgin then Mary was not a virgin when she delivered Jesus and thus Jesus is not the product of a virgin birth and we don't have the Messiah yet.
Burden of proof is on you to prove that Jesus had a normal birth. Our traditions hold that he did not come through the birth canal. Nothing about his conception was normal why why impose a normal delivery?
You: if GOD had given her that "GIFT OF PERPETUAL VIRGINITY" then the guys that KNEW Mary and wrote the NT would have mentioned such a miracle.
Me: They did and you missed it.
@@veritasmuy2407
You: No matter, according to Matthew 1:25, Joseph waited until after Jesus' birth to boink Mary -- many times. And Mary's WOMB popped out several more children for Joseph -- see John 7:3-5 -- the word is ADELPHOS which means "brothers of the WOMB" -- Mary's WOMB.
Me: How many children did Michal have?
@@veritasmuy2407
You: The NT written by the guys that KNEW Mary and were the Original Church, state that Mary's womb popped out other children after Jesus
Me: That is a lie. They said that Jesus had brothers and sisters but NEVER said that they were Mary's children. The way Scripture uses adelphos they could have been friends from another city.
@@veritasmuy2407 Yes, John states that Jesus' brothers FROM THE SAME WOMB (Mary's womb) did not believe that Jesus was the prophesied Jewish Messiah -- see John 7:3-5.
Me: "FROM THE SAME WOMB" is missing from ALL of the bibles I checked. Please quote from whatever bible you found that in. Or admit your lie!
You: The word that John uses to talk of Jesus' brothers is ADELPHOS from DELPHUS which means "WOMB" -- "adelphos" meaning brothers from the SAME WOMB.
Me: A scholar you're not! Here's is Strong's Concordance on Adelphos:
Definition: a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
any fellow or man
a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
an associate in employment or office
brethren in Christ
his brothers by blood
all men
apostles
Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
So, brother can mean blood brother or any fellow, or an associate. And I'm sure they don't all come from the same womb.
You: And then we have LUKE stating that Jesus was just Mary's PROTOTOKOS -- meaning first born of other children (Luke 2:7)
Me: Every woman who bears a child has a first born even if she dies in labor. And "firstborn" was a specific position of importance.
You: And then we have Matthew 1:25 which states that Joseph did not "know/have sex" with Mary until AFTER Jesus was born.
Me: I asked you before how many children Michal had. Scripture says that she didn't have any UNTIL her death, so, according to your logic she must have had children AFTER her death. Scripture says that Jesus will reign UNTIL he conquers his enemies. So I guess that Jesus no longer reigns AFTER he conquers them. Scripture often uses the concept of :until" to make a point before an not after the until period.
So you got nothing!
Luther and Calvin hold to Mary's perpetual virginity. Somewhere Protestants have lost their original doctrines.
Calvin: This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. - Calv Comm Matt 1.25
Luther: Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really mean “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Luther’s Works, vol. 22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )
@Sterling Crowne
HAHAHA. Here's what Strong's Concordance about "adelphos":
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from alpha (as a cop. prefix) and delphus (womb)
Definition
a brother
NASB Translation
believing husband (1), brethren (170), brethren* (13), brother (111), brother's (8), brothers (40).
All sorts of people can be adelphos and never came in contact with the same mother. You can even be from a different country and be of no blood relation at all and be adelphos in Scripture. I suggest you get an education.
@Sterling Crowne
The word is sourced from womb, it does not mean it is the same womb. We know that Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew. But Scripture say they were "adelphos". Not the same womb.
You are happy to stay ignorant.
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21-22).
The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13-14).
Let's say a prayer for King Azariah's poor mother.
@@veritasmuy2407
Yes, they were not equipped by God and the whole movement is just a man made fiasco.
@@veritasmuy2407
I have never deleted any comment except my own. I don't even know how to do that. And to do so would be cowardly.
@@veritasmuy2407
A. Luther had no divine authority. Thus man made fiasco.
B. Jesus established Peter as head of the church and gave him complete authority.
Maybe she was a spiritual virgin today now and forever. No matter the Christian denominations. Founded by no Jesus or apostle.
That makes as much sense as saying "I'm a spiritual frog".
Synagogue = witnessing to the Jews First even to this day.
Miriame Lafrance What do you mean?
*BUT JESUS CANNOT and DID NOT HAVE BLOOD SIBLINGS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE:*
Luke 1:36
Darby Translation
36 And behold, Elizabeth, thy *kinswoman,* she also has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month to her that was called barren:
----- Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."
Luke 1:36
21st Century King James Version
36 And behold, thy *cousin* Elizabeth: she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 1:36
International Standard Version
36 And listen! Elizabeth, *your relative,* has herself conceived a son in her old age, this woman who was rumored to be barren is in her sixth month.
Luke 1:36
King James Version
36 And, behold, thy *cousin* Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Acts 1:13-15
International Standard Version
13 When they came into the city, these men went to the upstairs room where they had been staying: Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son[b] of James.
14 With one mind, all of them kept devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women (including Mary the mother of Jesus) *and his brothers.*
15 At that time, Peter got up among *the brothers* (there were about 120 people present) and said,
----- the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Romans 9:3
King James Version
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for *my brethren, my kinsmen* according to the flesh.
----- Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Genesis 11:26-28
King James Version
26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and *Haran begat Lot.*
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
----- Lot is Abraham's nephew *("anepsios")*
Genesis 13:8
New Century Version
8 *Abram said to Lot,* “There should be no arguing between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, *because we are brothers.*
----- Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.
Genesis 29:15
King James Version
15 And *Laban said unto Jacob,* Because thou art *my brother,* shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?
------ Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
----- Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."
2 Samuel 1:26
King James Version
26 I am distressed for thee, *my brother Jonathan:* very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
1 Kings 9:13
King James Version
13 And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, *my brother?* And he called them the land of Cabul unto this day.
1 Kings 20:32
King James Version
32 So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Benhadad saith, I pray thee, let me live. And he said, Is he yet alive? *he is my brother.*
----- here we see that "brother" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.
2 Kings 10:13-14
Authorized (King James) Version
13 Jehu met with *the brethren of Ahaziah king of Judah,* and said, Who are ye? And they answered, We are *the brethren of Ahaziah;* and we go down to salute the children of the king and the children of the queen.
14 And he said, Take them alive. And they took them alive, and slew them at the pit of the shearing house, even two and forty men; neither left he any of them.
------ King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.
1 Chronicles 23:21-22
Authorized (King James) Version
21 The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish.
22 And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and *their brethren* the sons of Kish took them.
----- Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.
Nehemiah 4:14
International Standard Version
14 Looking things over, I stood up and spoke to the officials, the military leaders, and the rest of the people: “Don’t fear them. Remember the great and awe-inspiring Lord. Fight for *your brothers, your sons, your daughters,* your wives, and your homes.”
Nehemiah 5:1
New American Standard Bible
Charging Interest Abolished
5 Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their *Jewish brothers.*
Nehemiah 5:5
New American Standard Bible
5 And now our flesh is like the flesh of *our brothers,* our children like their children. Yet behold, we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters are forced into bondage already, and [a]we are helpless because our fields and vineyards belong to others.”
Nehemiah 5:8
New American Standard Bible
8 And I said to them, “We, according to our ability, have redeemed our *Jewish brothers* who were sold to the nations; now would you even sell your brothers that they may be sold to us?” Then they were silent and could not find a word to say.
----- these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen" NOT blood siblings.
Tobit 5:11
New Catholic Bible
11 Tobit said, *“Brother, tell me what family and tribe you belong to.”*
----- Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."
Amos 1:9
New King James Version
9 Thus says the Lord:
“For three transgressions of Tyre, and for four,
I will not turn away its punishment,
Because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom,
And did not remember the covenant of *brotherhood.*
----- brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).
The word for Jesus's brothers is Koiné αδελφός 'brother', not Modern Greek ξάδερφος 'cousin' from Koiné εξάδελφος from εξ- and αδελφός.
Mary was definitely a virgin for life.
People were referred to as brothers all the time and to this day in the Middle East
There is really know arguing that Mary remained a virgin after birthing Jesus. The bible clearly refutes that postion.
Matthew 1:24-25
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Joseph clearly consummated his marriage after Jesus was born.
So much for the LIE that is "the perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of God."
You are trying to force a false meaning on the word "until". In another place Scripture says that a particular woman had no children until she died. Do dead women have babies? That's what your use of the word "until" forces.
@@bridgefin book, chapter and verse?
@@skokenos I thought you guys were super familiar with Scripture! Try 2 Sam 6:23
@@bridgefin the word in 2 Samuel 6:23 is "unto". Perhaps one day you'll learn to read before you run your mouth. The verse in question means that she had no children the entire time she lived. Not "UNTIL" she died.
@@skokenos
“Unto” is an archaic word meaning “until”. Go look it up!
There is no virgin birth narrative in the gospel of Matthew! During the Second Temple Period, the betrothal (kiddushin) came first, which was followed a year later by the nisu'in (nuptials), when the husband (et al) "carries" his wife from her father's house and brings her to the home that he's prepared for her. (Cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins).
I submit that the use of συνελθεῖν (came together) in Matthew 1:18 refers to the nisu'in (nuptials), when the husband and wife publicly "come together" (συνέρχομαι) as a couple and the ketubah (marriage contract) is read aloud.
The Church assumes that the Greek word συνέρχομαι alludes to the couple "coming together" in a sexual union. Yet, the word συνέρχομαι is used of Yeshu "coming together" with his disciples (Acts 1:6) and it's used of Cornelius' kinsmen and near friends "coming together" (Acts 10:24-27) and it's used of Paul and the chief of the Jews "coming together" (Acts 28:17), etc. In short, the word συνέρχομαι needn't be interpreted as "coming together" in a sexual union.
Prior to the 3rd century C.E., Jewish law (halakah) held that a man obtained a wife by 1. paying money (kessef), 2. a written declaration of intent (shetar), and 3. sexual intercourse (bi'ah) - Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. (See also, "The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" by Maurice Lamm, pp. 143f).
It was the custom among the plebeian class of Jews to have coitus (bi'ah) as part of their betrothal (kiddushin). Why? Aside from tradition, it was only logical for the groom to ensure that his wife was indeed a virgin, rather than pay the kessef (money) and the mohar (dowry of 200 zuzim for a virgin) and scrape together the funds to pay for the wedding feast, only to find out at the nisu'in (nuptials) that his wife wasn't a virgin.
Lamm writes (ibid., p. 146), "After the man has addressed the marriage formula to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting the betrothal (kiddushin) through intercourse (bi'ah). The Sages considered this to be gross, virtually an act of prostitution (πορνεία), and in the third century Rav decreed flogging for those who chose this manner of betrothal. Nonetheless, if the marriage was performed in this way it was legally valid. Only kessef is performed today; both intercourse and contract as forms of betrothal are obsolete."
The account in Matthew is simply stating that Miriam was found to be pregnant by Yosef prior to their "coming together" at the nuptials (nisu'in).
As for the role played by HaShem's Spirit in the conception, proto-Rabbinic Judaism teaches the following:
"There are three partners in man ... his father supplies the ... substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the ... substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. HaShem gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, HaShem takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them" - Niddah 31a; cf. She'iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).
In short, HaShem's Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child! We are all the literal Offspring of OUR Heavenly Father.
Why did Yosef want to secretly divorce Miriam? Because he wanted to save her from the gossips among the patrician class of Jews, who regarded the combination of kessef (money) and bi'ah (coitus) to effect the kiddushin (betrothal) as being tantamount to prostitution (πορνεία). Nevertheless, Yosef was reminded in a dream that he'd followed the established halakah (religio-legal ruling), so there was no need to be ashamed.
That being said, later in Yeshu's life, certain Judeans said to him, "We be not born of fornication (πορνεία); we have one Father ... HaShem" (John 8:41). Obviously, this was meant to be a taunting jab at the circumstances of Yeshu's conception during his parents' kiddushin (betrothal), which these particular Judeans regarded as being essentially an act of prostitution (πορνεία).
How did Yeshu's followers combat this vituperation? They simply pointed to Isaiah 7:14, as a halakhic proof text that conceiving a child as part of the betrothal phase was perfectly acceptable, because the text reads that a "newlywed" (עַלְמָה - cf. Jastrow's dictionary) will conceive a child, who, like each and every child, will have a soul that is a portion of the Deity from above (chelek Elokim mima'al). HaShem is with and within all of us!
Yeshu's Jewish followers had no intention of using Isaiah 7:14 as a means to espouse their belief in parthenogenesis. They'd have regarded the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Miriam's Immaculate Conception to be patently absurd!
@Sterling Crowne - I'm fully aware of what your Xtian dogma has to say on the matter. It's amazing what people can come up with once they opt to return to their pagan roots.
@Sterling Crowne - Read W.D. Davies, "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology." He has a has an entire chapter on the Second Adam. You won't be disappointed.
@Sterling Crowne - Then I'll ignore you just as you ignored me.
@Sterling Crowne - AGAIN, your opinion means nothing because you don't want to place the material in question back into its proper historical, linguistic, and cultural context. Instead you're reading the texts through the eyes of church theology which wasn't even fully developed until hundreds upon hundreds of years after the historical man and his immediate followers died. You're projecting your beliefs into the texts, rather than reading them through the eyes of the original authors and their redactors!
@Sterling Crowne - What this passage is speaking about in the proto-Rabbinic concept of the Evil Inclination (Heb. Yetzer HaRa) and the Good Impulse (Heb. Yetzer HaTov). The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "ruach," which means "wind." One of the functions of "wind" is aeolian erosion whereby the wind removes the loose particles of earth and thereby reveals what hitherto had been hidden beneath them. In this sense, the word "ruach" means an agent of revelation. An unclean spirit is simply a manifestation of an unclean revelation within the human psyche that is rooted in one's Evil Imagination (Yetzer HaRa). The Evil Inclination isn't "evil" in and of itself, because without it we wouldn't engage in business, build a home, marry or have children. It's merely our Survival Instinct and Sex Drive, which are good things, but they can quickly become evil when we allow our "fleshly" selfish urges to run amok.
We're born with the Evil Inclination switched on. It's what Freud call the "Id" and what the Apostle Paul called the "sarx" (flesh) and "the old man." (See, "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology" by W.D. Davies, pp. 17f). Our Good Impulse (Yetzer HaTov) only comes online when we reach the age of accountability and make a choice to follow a moral code. Freud called this Good Impulse the "Super-Ego" and the Apostle Paul called it the "pneuma" (lit. spirit; wind) and "the new [man]," because, if you're a Jew, the Good Impulse is 12 to 13 years younger than the Evil Inclination. In other words, when a Jewish boy/girl becomes a son/daughter of the Mitzvot, they are "born again," because their Good Imagination comes online and begins the work of taming the Evil Imagination and turns it into a servant of OUR Heavenly Father.
Rami bar Abba says like this: What is the meaning of that which is written: "There was a little city and few men in it, and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a man poor and wise, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man" (Ecclesiastes 9:14-15)? "A little city," this is referring to the body; "and few men in it," this is referring to the limbs; "and there came a great king against it and besieged it," this is referring to the Evil Inclination; "and built great bulwarks against it," these are sins. The Gemara expounds on the next section of the verse: "Now there was found in it a man poor and wise," this is referring to the Good Inclination; "and he by his wisdom delivered the city," this is referring to repentance and good deeds that are caused by the Good Inclination. "Yet no man remembered that same poor man" means that when the Evil Inclination overcomes the Good Inclination no one remembers the Good Inclination. - Nedarim 32b.
We're supposed to use our Good Impulse to tame our Evil Inclination and turn it into a servant of HaShem. Sadly, many people don't succeed in doing this and end up leading a life devoted to heeding the whims of their own Evil Inclination.
Shim'on ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) says like this, "Satan, the Evil Inclination, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence. He is the Satan who seduces people and then accuses them, as it is written: "So the Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with vile sores" (Job 2:7). He is also the Evil Inclination, as it is written there: "The impulse of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously" (Genesis 6:5); and it is written here: "Only upon himself do not put forth your hand" (Job 1:12). The verbal analogy between the various uses of the word "only" teaches that the Evil Inclination is to be identified with the Satan. He is also the Angel of Death, as it is written: "Only spare his life" (Job 2:6); apparently, Job’s life depends upon him, the Satan, and accordingly, the Satan must also be the Angel of Death. - Bava Batra 16a.
When Yeshua went into the wilderness to be tempted by HaSatan ... what do you think he was being tempted by? The "Celestial Satan"...? The Prosecuting Attorney in HaShem's Heavenly Court, who stands before the Throne of HaShem and accuses the brethren day and night? Yeshua was fasting in order to tame his own Evil Imagination (Yetzer HaRa).
Do you really think that HaShem, the Infinite One, has a Throne in one specific location within the Multiverse or our own universe? Where is HaShem's Throne and Heavenly Court if not within you? Where is the Rulership of HaShem (Malchut Shamayim) if not within you? Where is HaSatan, the Evil Inclination, if not within you? Peter says like this, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary (antidikos), the false accuser (diabolos), as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished *in your brethren* that are in the world" (1 Peter 5:8-9).
The only unclean spirit you need concern yourself with is the unclean revelations that come from your own Evil Imagination. If you're going to follow Yeshua's gospel, then "Turn to HaShem in repentance! Because the Rulership of HaShem is a present reality!" Unlike Xtianity, Jews don't believe that "original sin," which Augustine stated was concupiscence, is a sexually transmitted and genetically inherited disorder that separates all mankind from the Deity. If one has to accept the blood atonement of your version of "Jesus" and profess him to be their Deity and Savior in order to be "born again," then why was Yeshu surprised that the historical man, Nakdimon ben Gurion, didn't know what should've been common knowledge to a teacher of Klal Yisrael? "Except a man be born of water [the amniotic fluid of the womb] and of the [HaShem's] Spirit, he cannot enter into the Rulership of HaShem. That which is born of the flesh [Evil Imagination] is flesh [the Evil Inclination]; and that which is born of the spirit [Good Imagination] is spirit [the Good Impulse]. Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again."
As for the role played by HaShem's Spirit in the conception, proto-Rabbinic Judaism teaches the following:
"There are three partners in man ... his father supplies the ... substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the ... substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. HaShem gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, HaShem takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them" - Niddah 31a; cf. She'iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).
I know you don't want to place this back into it's proper historical, linguistic, and cultural context. I know you believe that only Jesus's blood can atone for you sins. I know you believe in the Virgin Birth (and maybe even the Immaculation Conception). You probably think I'm some Christi-killing, benighted Jew, who's going to burn in the Lake of Fire with your Xtian version of Satan and his demons for all eternity. Just going believing that. I'm not out to convert you away from your belief-system.
Think about it. Mary literally had God inside of her. God in the flesh literally dwelled as a person inside of her. Her body nourished that of the second person of the Trinity. She was absolutely ever-virgin and to suggest otherwise not only contradicts scripture and Christian tradition but is also very disrespectful to the mother of our savior.
@@veritasmuy2407 are you denying that Christ is God?
@@veritasmuy2407 nothing disrespectful
@@veritasmuy2407 uh, no I am not denying that Christ is the Son of God. But He is also God. I can say that since I have a proper understanding of the Trinity, which you apparently can’t say the same. If you think Christ being the Son of God is mutually exclusive to him being God, you don’t understand the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Three distinct persons, yet one God.
@@veritasmuy2407 nope, that’s heresy. All of it. Just because you have verse references, doesn’t mean they support what you’re saying. My understanding is in accord with church history, yours is not. The early church settled many of these questions, why are you still trying to interpret them on your own understanding or the understanding of some pastor you trust? Your positions are extremely dangerous, as you are completely wrong on who God is, who Jesus is, and who the Holy Spirit is.
@@veritasmuy2407 So literally no source is trustworthy other than your own interpretation? What could go wrong?
Its almost like the message Jesus was saying is that atonement is limited and many wont be saved....
Atonement isn’t limited, but it is conditional, and many won’t be saved.
@@darrylsturgis7389 so you are saying jesus's will has failed because his sacrafice is conditional to the will of man. That seems to be at odds with the Bible and the sovereign power of God.
@@darrylsturgis7389 also applying a conditional standard limits atonement. So none who have never heard or lived before Jesus can not be saved.
@@darrylsturgis7389 - therefore are we to suppose that the children that were born and died as children in the Old Testament are in hell? Is your God that cruel?
Christ suffered the cross as a substitute for man’s sin. That is the atonement as I understand it. It’s from God’s plan fulfilled through the works of His Son. It is only through Christ’s work that we are saved. The conditional part is that we have to acknowledge that work and accept Christ as our savior. It is through Christ works and not by my works that I am saved. Many won’t accept Him and won’t be saved.
That box is called calvinism🤫😏❤
Slow clap....
People here who are going on and on about Catholics, It's funny how all of the bible you have and know is Catholic (Catholics have the more complete version coz we've kept all the books)..the earliest teachings of the bibles that you know and believe even are from Catholic teachings..yet when YOU chose not to believe, you decide to teach the teacher. So funny! Dont forget, when is comes to things you dont understans like Marian Dogma's - even the disciples didnt understand everything, until Jesus gave them the wisdom.
@@veritasmuy2407 i dont understand your question. Which guy?
@@veritasmuy2407 i understand English. However, your construction of a simple question is simply atrocious.
Anyways...
If you believe that the authors met Jesus, then they would have met Mary because she was with Jesus throughout his ministry..eg. at Cana and also at the foot of the cross...and if you believe the Gospel writers did not meet Jesus, then they wouldnt have met Mary too. So what is it that you believe?
@@veritasmuy2407 it was compiled by the early /original church...which was??
@@veritasmuy2407 no one is running. Im asking you a simple question..as to what you believe. Then i can answer you based on that.
Also, before you jump like a frog under fire, i will answer your questions only if you are open to an intellectual conversation..if you are more interested in throwing sacarsm and not-so-smart comments, i am not interested in engaging in a dialogue with you.
@@veritasmuy2407 its simpler to explain to someone something, when i know what it is they are thinking/believing. After the breakaway of churches, there are so many opinions and beliefs - esp when it comes to our blessed mother.
The original horror story: Jesus' story time 🤣
Can you explain your thought further? Do you have any facts to support your claim? Or is this just a joke?
It's a joke, a partial quote of the video....it's the little things in life that really make me wonder about ones place in the world as an individul, this comment was one of them...sorry if i made your day worse or offended...forget about the whole thing
...
I actually love your videos and glad you preach with a humble heart but I really did not like your dishonesty about the ever Virgin it’s funny to me that you did not quote one historical source most of the eary Chutch fathers and apologists and theologians all say the Mary was ever virgin people who lived around the same time as the apostles who knew them knew Mary and looked after her they all said Jesus was her only son yet u say there is no evidence for this that’s dishonest Mike. And the reason Luke didn’t make a distinction about them being step brothers or cusins because it has no bearing on salvation but he did make a distinction about Joseph not being his actual father because of Jesus divinity and him being the Son Of God and actually Luke did make a distinction he always referred to Jesus The Son of Mary and then he said and his brothers and sister Luke never said that the brothers and sister were Mary children he always referred to Jesus as son of Mary and then he says and his brothers and sisters. God bless you always
@Sterling Crowne hahaha u know lying is not a good thing adelphos doesn’t mean brother of the womb hahaha seriously u telling me that Abraham and lot the Bible says adelphos so u saying lot is Abraham brother 29:15 hahaha when the Bible clearly says there uncle and nephew 🤦🏻♂️ go and ask for forgiveness for lying 🤥
@Sterling Crowne Gen 29-15 in the Greek says adelphos according to lot is Abraham brother of the womb hahaha bro stop it 👀
@Sterling Crowne Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21-22).
The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13-14). Here the facts 💁🏻
@Sterling Crowne ἀκούσας δὲ αβραμ ὅτι ᾐχμαλώτευται λωτ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ἠρίθμησεν τοὺς ἰδίους οἰκογενεῖς αὐτοῦ τριακοσίους δέκα καὶ ὀκτώ καὶ κατεδίωξεν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν ἕως δαν and here the Greek for you but YOU CANT EVEN READ IT 🥺
@Sterling Crowne 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ u can’t be serious lol you do realize that the old testaments was also written in Greek and Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint most of the time that’s the Greek version of the Old Testament the point is not what the Hebrew says it’s what the Greek version still says adelphos there no word that means brother of womb ach in Hebrew just means brother ache in Arabic brother akhoni in Aramaic brother and all three means brother which is used for siblings cusins and close relatives. Listen on a serious note there is no word for cusin in Aramaic Hebrew and Arabic so they use brother to refer to cusins and kinsmen. Plus if u wanna argue Mary had other children lol you will get crushed by the church fathers alone who were there and know the people who knew Mary and the fact that you CLEARLY HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT JEWISH CULTURE AND CONTEXTS 🤦🏻♂️
If Mike wants to really deal with atheism he should deal with the implied agnosticism and consequent atheism within Protestant Evangelicalism. The private interpretation of the texts concludes to multiple outcomes. The many outcomes infer the meaning of the text is not known within the Protestant system. As the meaning is not known, there is no way to know if a revelation has been made. And no revelation infers an agnostic position. As agnosticism is a form of practical atheism, Protestantism leads into the falsity of atheism.
Mikes gospel is only a closet humanism that elevates Mikes private opinion above the text. The text then becomes subject to the human whims of the believer, such as paralleled by the secular humanists who are the judge of all things. Mike judges the text to be authored by God. The secular humanist judges the text to be authored only by man. Mike then makes a human judgement about the meaning of the text, and similarly the humanist also makes a judgement about the meaning of the text.
Both Mike and the humanists become the judges of all things related to the meaning of life, and neither camp has any proof for their positions.
@@veritasmuy2407 Jesus was really telling us Mike winger has the truth when nobody else in church history believes what he believes, based upon an oral tradition invented 500 years ago. Jesus was also teaching justification by faith alone so when the elect go to heaven without any faith they are justified without faith.
You can read all of that into just about any text you want, when you want, how you want, just as long as it makes you think you are one of the elect.
@@veritasmuy2407 You follow the text through the lens of your own making and disregard the safeguards of the faith in the fathers and church councils, doctors and mystics. Protestant theology s always quasi humanist by denying the legitimate testimony of faith in church history. The quasi humanism of Protestantism collapses into the atheistic, humanist age we are now suffering through.
Protestantism is another form of human pride found in the Edenic garden.
@@veritasmuy2407 Take a course in logic.
@@veritasmuy2407 Mary is the mother of Christians derived from her divine maternity in relation to her Son who is the head of the church. The mother of the king is the royal mother of all covenant members of the household of faith. John 19:25-27 plays some role in explaining Mary's maternal role in the life of Christians. Her maternal care of John does give some indication of her universal care of the faithful.
Prediction - some illogical response backed up without any evidence.
@@veritasmuy2407 The thorough going incompetent ignoramus fabricates a dullard problem.
Mike, did you seriously just try to explain away the Christian teaching about Mary's Perpetual Virginity by saying it would seem "strange" if people referred to Jesus's cousins as His cousins? How would that be strange? Do you not refer to your cousins as cousins? Where is the strange part Mike?
Is that really what you think I said?
@@MikeWinger - what did you say Mike? I would like to know what you meant. Thank you!
@@MikeWinger Yes... but only seeing as you literally said it. Of course, we know that you have a tendency to deny your claims once people point out how ridiculous they sound. Do you really think denying your own words is an effective way to be taken seriously, Mike?
@@rafaelcarbone1387 The part Mike is denying is at 52:41
Didn’t Martin Luther as well as some Protestant scholars today believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, arguing that the brothers of the Lord were in fact cousins?
So you beleive that theotokos had kids after she had in her womb the word of God.Who narrated that to you;was it ΄Satan;
παναγιωτης καραγιαννης You Catholics have deified and worship Mary...we worship God. Good luck with that.
Cassandra Schmidt I’m guessing they are orthodox not Catholic. And we Catholics don’t worship Mary, we honor her as the mother of God.
Reddishbrownhorse Shes not the mother of God that is blasphemy, God is a uncreated being he is alpha and omega, as such Nary is merely the vessel God chose to birth his physical body in to this world, so she is the earthly biological mother of the person Christ Jesus. The way you put it, it sounds like a Mother God or deity, and a Son God or deity. And btw aren’t orthodox and Roman Catholic the same minus papal authority?
Flatheads Rebuked Honoring Mary as the Mother of God is not blasphemy. We in NO WAY believe that Mary created God. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who has two natures, human and divine. It’s actually quite simple, Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God, Mary is therefore the Mother of God (not his creator!). It’s much like God created all human souls, and their mother gave birth to them. The main difference is that Jesus has two natures whereas we humans only have one. Catholics and Orthodox Christians agree on almost all issues. We do have a few differences such as papal authority. Hopefully through the work of the Holy Spirit we will be reunited.
@@bellalugosi5853 You worship the devil, not Jesus.
I haven't ever seen any evidence that any of the "magic" described in the Bible is true. I would love to spend eternity with my children but I just don't believe it us true. And it sucks.
Hey Mike! Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant as made very clear by Luke (which I could go into detail about if you would like.) If you know so much about the Bible, tell me, what happens when a man touches the Ark of the Convenant?
Caterina Eremondi That’s one bs you are up 😂Joseph definitely had sex and biological children with his “wife” btw Joseph tried to leave the marriage but was ordered by God to go back to Mary.
It's a shame sometimes when you insist that jesus has brothers and sisters from Mary... even thou today u see nuns and mothers and sisters giving their life to serve God... what of the one who God chooses to be the mother of God... have u ever imagined how holy she could be compared to the mother and nuns of today...
You talking about catholic it's so sad when you don't have 100% fact it's a or complete understanding of Catholicism... i was a muslims when i got called by jesus he directly too me to this Catholicism you criticise always... wish u know about God deeply... or about how jesus converted me become catholic from my Muslim faith this all happened in prison and in Indonesia the country with highest population in Islam.... please teach people but stop criticising people who believe in the father, the son and the holy spirit... Jesus will love that
Unfortunately, there are many sects of supposed Christianity that does not have sound teachings.
Catholicism is very cult-like. It is not teaching the truth of the Bible.
Mike is simply trying to teach what the Bible says.. and does not make up things to feed his agenda. You cannot be upset with him about conveying what he has learned. You should be thankful he is trying to spread truth.
Please look up his videos on Catholicism. I was brought up Catholic. I was married to a Muslim. Neither teach truth. I'm sorry to say. I hope you continue to listen to Mike and seek the truth for yourself
@@Sadielady1978 you are wrong my friend... so as Mike am not saying this because i wanted to say it... if u understand my comment well i was saying Mike is wrong because jesus called me to Catholicism and if they were cult like you said that means jesus is wrong but he is our lord and saviour and knows best... you won't understand not matter how i explain it here..... am not catholic because of anyone but jesus himself made me catholic from Islam faith... that alone proved catholic to be right even thou they can make mistakes bt they ar ture
We don't understand many things about God..that is why we are divided something that jesus prayed for us to be one as he and the father is one..
Saying Catholicism is wrong is like a child saying to the mother you don't know how to make a baby...understand this please
@@Sadielady1978 i agree with you on that
That there are many sect of supposed Christians that does not have sound teachings... that include Mike sect as well my friend all sects do have their mistakes and trust me only the creator know so let us stop judging ourselves on our mistakes let alone the creator do...🙏✝️
@@johnturay4669 I understand that you believe that.
I would still encourage you to listen to Mike's teachings on Catholicism. Neither he or I hate Catholics.
Jesus called you out of Islam. And now that you have a better understanding of Jesus, the Lord has brought you here now to even better understand the Bible and Jesus. Thank you and God Bless.
@Juan Parra Christianity was founded on believing in Christ. Christianity was taken over by Catholicism. Protestant is simply a taking back of regular Christianity. Martin Luther saw what the Catholic church was doing to Christianity and wanted to simplify what it was doing to Christian teaching. Christianity, as Mike is teaching, began when Christ was alive, over 2000 yrs ago.
Maybe you don't have a sound understanding of Christianity. Catholicism was not its founder. .
Nice attempt at greek but the basic word εως ου that you translate as until has been used 2000 years to mean never and that's how we still use it.
This is wonderful , 18 pts and its only ch 6 . This is why I { my opinion } think that a believer shouldnt just study alone , Seeking out a qualified Teacher and listening closely , exposes you to a much deeper understanding of scripture { even familar ones } . I have read Mark countless times in the last 40 yrs and never got even half of what Mike just revealed to me . Thanks Pastor Mike
30:19 At the time I was listening to this, I was thinking about how I kept sinning over and over and just could not stop. I felt like I was letting God down after all he had done for me, but then as soon as Mike started saying this, it was like a light just turned on. The second he started, it was like it was Jesus himself was talking directly to me, saying "Don't worry about it, just try your best."
Thanks Mike, and of course Jesus.
No where does Jesus tell us to do our best. Jesus said, "whom the Son sets free is free indeed." And, "those who sin are the slave of sin." If you are trapped in a cycle of sin, you need to seek God with genuine repentance and come to know Christ.
Hi, I know you wrote this comment 3 years ago, but I just wanted to say I felt the exact same. It tore me apart, not that I'm perfect now I just had a few repetitive sin issues. I hope your doing better and have won that spirit/ flesh battle.
I don't understand why Jesus wasn't recognised as a prophet since his family knew that he was born of a virgin and the angels appeared at his birth, and the three kings searched for him. And when they call him out of the house and say that he is out of his mind? Surely, his family would have KNOWN that he was special hence why would they say he was out of his mind? Very confusing.
Remember His parents knew who Jesus was, but that doesn't mean His siblings and neighbors believed. If your parents said your brother was born while your mom was a virgin, but all your neighbors insisted that your parents were adulterers and the virgin story was made up, how long would you believe your parents?
It's really cool that we know of one of Jesus's brothers, James, the author of one of the new testament books.
I really enjoyed this, wise Brother, and I look forward to sharing and watching more... May God bless you and yours all the way up to your hearing those incredible Words, "Well done, good and faithful servant... Enter into My rest."
I hope this doesn't offend, but, please, be careful of putting whole groups into "boxes". I happen to be a member of that "older generation", you mentioned, and, though I won't argue -eutics, -isms, -ologies, or translations, I use my skills as an old hippie-artist-JesusFreak to reach out to the world on the Internet. To top it off, my engineer/ComputerGeek husband (who's been working on computers since they filled rooms instead of microchips, 52 years ago) helps me serve AND has his own ministry sharing the Good News as well. Most of all, we know what The Word of God says, so how could we not be about our Master's business till He returns? The truth is that I'm always trying to find out what pleases our King, and I know I'm not alone doing that in my generation... :)
I have heard many atheists claim they are following evidence and not emotion. When questioned on a deeper level, many of them reveal they’re motivated by rage. Often it’s rage towards the father figure.
While crappy motives are likely present, there are rational reasons one would find the idea that this scripture is true or else we're all condemned for vague infractions irrational.
I suspect everyone has crappy motives deep down as we're all human. But that the rational arguments still should be addressed.
Dig deep enough and you will often find a father wound at the bottom of the atheist.
What I see in the Catholic Church is that Jesus hangs on the cross, like a hunting trophy, the Jewish God they killed. And they have patented and slapped Mary on a lunch box, and here is your god and no, we don't know and can't guarantee you will go to heaven. But, yes we still believe in Jesus only he is only able to forgive you of menial sins, ones which you don't go to hell for anyway. It is our priests who can absolve you of serious sin and we want to know all the details to be able to control you. This makes the priests and the church powerful and the real Jesus incredibly weak. And it is so wrong and so wicked. It keeps masses of people from every knowing the Risen Lord and the True Savior!
Truly these are those we are warned about, who hold a form of religion but deny the power of it and from such turn away.
To know the real Risen Lord, is being saved in many ways on a daily basis. Of having the spirit in my heart making plain which way I am to go. To have my heart so full of Jesus in my heart, it is an experience of the Glory of God. Of godly sorrow, so that we do repent of sins.
Some of the healings I've received have been instant, others have been that God led me to eat some foods and totally leave others alone. Jesus frequently does not heal two people the same way, He treats us as the individuals we are. Truly we have reaches a time when so many foods are toxic.
In this day and age I pray for revival, and the Lord told us to fast and pray so I can't fast continually so I did not give up meat for Lent, I gave it up until He comes. But my arthritis went away, my cholesterol became normal and my weight is in the normal range.
Grace is a free gift, but yes, it does cost us something. What it costs us is freeing us from sin itself.
It is possible, also as a caveat, that Mary may have still been alive during the writing of the 4 Gospels, and could provide first hand confirmation, along with the other surviving apostles, to the true testimony of this written book to church of believers.
Well we know that she was with the Apostle John and features prominently in his Gospel's description of the Passion.
She did. That's how Luke got his account of the birth story as well as other passages with just her.
@@thomasbailey921
I don't think that it is a coincidence that John's gospel is so lofty after he spent so much tie with Mary. What insight must she have had after spending 33 years in direct relationship with Jesus.
quote---it is possible, also as a caveat, that Mary may have still been alive during the writing of the 4 Gospels, and could provide first hand confirmation, along with the other surviving apostles, to the true testimony of this written book to church of believers.--unquote
Nope--She was given to John at the cross; He took her to his house.
According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary technically could have been betrothed at about 12, but most Jewish women in Palestine of her time married during their late teens or early twenties. Hyppolitus of Thebes says that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD.
THe Jewish custom is for girls age 13 to go through a ritual to be considered at age of consent.. IF_-Mary was age -say 14- at the time of Jesus birth-----He was age 33 at his death-----14 plus 33--plus 11 equals 58 years old. After research, the average age for an Israelite at that time was 60 to die.
---Mary died in 41AD----- Mary year of birth--10BCE.---???
John died at age 98-----
(At what age did Apostle John die? 88 years (11 AD-99 AD)
A love your explaination around 40 minutes!!! That helps a lot in all the confusion of all these false healing 'sermons' 💙 (sorry for my bad Dutch english)
Your english is great. God bless you
Why do you keep trashing Catholicism? It's NOT going away and it has been around a lot longer then the protestant faith. Catholics don't trash you.
He doesn't trash it. He speaks the truth about your cult. And protestantism is just going off GODs word for instruction. I mean bro... look at the long line of popes. You can't possibly think their the vicors of Christ. Theirs no such thing. Idolatry is a very serious matter. Repent before it's to late.
@@JesusWept1999
Jesus weeps over Mike's ignorance of Jesus' only church and over the fact that Mike constantly attacks him by attacking his church. You, too, misunderstand I see. Blame that on your false teachers.
@@JesusWept1999the fruit of heretical Protestantism
@@JesusWept1999 Let's examine the scriptures to see what is true.
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17)
Jesus, the Good Shepherd, declared, "There shall be one flock, one shepherd." (cf. John 10:16) After His resurrection, Jesus instructed Peter to "take care of" and "feed" the sheep of His flock (cf. John 21:15-17). *One who acts as a substitute or agent for someone in a higher position is known as a “vicar”. Jesus is in heaven; Peter was the first vicar of Christ on earth.*
And here's the best part:
Because Jesus is an eternal king whose reign will never end, the office of His vicar on earth has continued and will continue until He comes again. Peter and his successors, the Popes of the Catholic Church have continued serving in this office, ensuring continuity in leadership and the preservation of Christ's authority.
I hope this helps.