that means all her ancestors never sinned. what happened to your idea about 'original sin'? what you say clearly go against what the bible says, Ecclesiastes 7:20 Surely there is not a man on earth who does good and never sins.
@@arnelnaca702 That's not a proper understanding of original sin. Original sin is about fallen human nature, not inherited guilt. Christ chose Mary as his mother and changed her nature at conception in anticipation of his incarnation. He is the new Adam and she is the new Eve.
I am sure that no one will be lost for accepting the perpetual virginity or for denying it. I do have to note that the doctrine seems close to Gnostic suspicion of the material world and sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse within marriage does not impute sin at all according to scripture.
In your opinion how many truths and sacraments can be ignored before they are _lost?_ I don't believe the Church teaches that sex within marriage is a sin.
@@dave_ecclectic It is not a matter that can be numbered. There are many truths and facts in scripture and the history of the Lord and the Church. Only a few of them are critical to salvation, such as Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He came in the flesh, is God , that the works He did were of the Holy Spirit and that God is Love. I never said that the RC church teaches that sex within marriage is a sin. I said that the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine seems to be held to in order to affirm Mary's Holiness and the logic seems to be that if she has sex at all she would be in sin.
@@thenowchurch6419 You began numbering it, now you say it can't be numbered? The logic only seems to be on your view that Mary remained celibate. Why is this a logical view? and what does logic have to do with actual events?
@@dave_ecclectic What do you mean I began numbering it? I did no such thing. Please stop mixing me up with someone else or making stuff up. My view that Mary remained celibate? I never said that was my view. My view is that she probable did not remain celibate after birthing Jesus. The logic I applied was that it seems that the RC Church considers sex to be sinful when it comes to Mary, even if she had sex with her lawful husband, because it insists on her perpetual virginity when scripture does not explicitly say so. That is pretty simple my friend.
@@thenowchurch6419 _I am sure that no one will be lost for accepting the perpetual virginity or for denying it._ _Only a few of them are critical to salvation, such as..._ _What do you mean I began numbering it? I did no such thing._ _I never said that the RC church teaches that sex within marriage is a sin._ _Sexual intercourse within marriage does not impute sin at all according to scripture._ This implies the Church does. _The logic I applied was that it seems that the RC Church considers sex to be sinful when ..._ This *says* the Church does My mistake, sorry. I didn't realize Scripture was required to Explicitly state anything much less that it always does. You know - like how the Bible does not Explicitly state to Eat the flesh of our Lord and all that. Or that is has to be logical, like sacrificing your Son to pay for our sins. If you wish to believe the Church teaches that Mary needed to remain a virgin because of sin so be it. Myself I don't see the connection between her remaining a virgin, and it must be _immaculately_ recorded in the Bible that she was, because it must be logical. Little pun there.
I believe the Scriptures especially the Gospels should be the final guide of all doctrines but other external sources are welcomed as long as they don't contradict the Gospels
@@gwin8463 What's your thought on the Gospel of Thomas? It appears to be sayings of Jesus with out narration or theme from the apostles perspective of Him. I wonder where that fits in.
The belief that Jesus is fully God and fully man didn't develop in isolation-it grew alongside the Church's understanding of Mary's unique role in salvation. For me, Mary's perpetual virginity and her title as Theotokos (Mother of God) are central because they protect the truth of Jesus's divine and human natures. If Mary carried God in the flesh, then she was chosen for something completely unique and holy. That's why her Immaculate Conception makes so much sense- God preserved her from sin so she could fully say "yes" to His plan. Her perpetual virginity underscores that Jesus's birth was miraculous, not ordinary, pointing directly to His divinity. As the Church deepened its understanding of who Jesus is, it naturally gained a clearer understanding of Mary, because her role is inseparable from His Incarnation. Their natures -His as fully divine and fully human, and hers as sinless and ever-virgin-developed together in the Church's reflection. These beliefs don't elevate Mary above Jesus; they glorify Him by revealing the depth of God's plan. To dismiss Mary's role is to miss the bigger picture of what God was doing through her and for us. She's not the center of the story-Jesus is-but her role is essential to understanding Him.
Almost nothing you said is found in the Bible. Mary sinless????? Are you insane? She was a mere vessel, we don't worship her or the apostles, only God!
@@MichaelHowardMonroe I don't 'belong' to any 'congregation'. I worship the God that was revealed to me through Scripture. Yes, I attend Church but I'm non-denominational.
@@meandepiphany firstborn is a legal term indicating special privilege or rank. This term was important for OT law requirements. It’s not an indication that Jesus was the first of multiple children.
If only one son is born, he is still "firstborn". Going even deeper, Christ is the firstborn Son of God, and being "born again" is being born into the family of God. Christ becomes our brother, and is the "firstborn" of all salvation.
@sentjojo Where can I find the source for your definition? Multiple dictionaries and etymology shows that it means the eldest in the line of childbirth.
@ If you don’t feel comfortable clicking on the link, you can go to the new advent website and search first born mosaic law. This is the Catholic explanation
No, it relates to Mathew writing the gospel to Jewish community mainly and underscoring that Joseph did not participate in conception to fulfill the prophecy of a virgin with child. It was unheard of as all families bear children with a hope for their offspring to become the Messiah. You pray over the passage and you will see to it the meaning you quote.
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:20-21, 24-25) To be sure, this passage is one of the most frequently cited proofs against the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, if we interpret it in its first-century Jewish context, it actually provides important corroboration for the evidence in Luke’s Gospel that Joseph and Mary do not engage in ordinary marital relations. To begin with, although at first glance the statement that Joseph did not “know” Mary “until (Greek heōs) she bore a son” (Matthew 1:25) may seem to imply that Joseph did have relations with Mary after the birth, this is actually not the case. The Greek word “until” (heōs) simply describes a certain period of time, and does not imply anything about what happens afterward. Consider, for example, the following examples from Matthew’s Gospel, in which the word “until” (Greek heōs) clearly does not imply a change afterward: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until (Greek heōs) I put your enemies under your feet.’ ” (Matthew 22:44) Jesus came and said to them…“Lo, I am with you always, until (Greek heōs) the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20) Perhaps the most striking example of all comes from the account in the Greek Old Testament of what happened to King David and his wife Michal after she despised him for dancing: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (Greek heōs) the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:23 LXX)18
@@bairfreedom why would Mary ask an angel how is that going to happen that I will be with a child while being betrothed to Joseph at the moment of annunciation? Or you think she was stupid not knowing how children were being conceived? At this, there are also beliefs that Joseph was widowed and had children from previous marriage too, as it stands in later 400s proto-gospels. Lots of possibilities other than real sisters and brothers. Same you find in a gospel that one of the apostles was presumably a brother of the Lord, that is Jude. Was Mary then his mother? So, lots of possibilities to interpret brothers and sisters if not being locked in one's own realm. But Mary's questioning of the angel is the only scriptural point to be explained if you are right. And also, it doesn't correlate with other Protestant belief that Jesus was giving Mary to John as a mother to look after only and not in a spiritual sense, if there were other brothers and sisters. Which also needs clarification in this respect...
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which *was made of the seed of David according to the flesh* {Romans 1:3} For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son *in the likeness of sinful flesh* and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: {Romans 8:3}
To the people in the comments still arguing against Sam: Did you even listen to what he said? If you want to refute him, give him a Church Father that opposes the perpetual virginity of Mary. Have a nice day. May the All and Most Holy Trinity guide you to the truth and fullness of the faith.
Why? He set up several fallacies. First he said his argument was biblical. It wasn't. He ran through Bible verses not one of which speak to his final claim. Worse, in each verse he implied meaning to the text that was actually not there. Then once his side show was complete he turned to claiming others ave no answers. All fallacious. Finally, he turned to "the traditions of men" not the apostles as expected. He would be thrown out of a first semester exegesis class. Sadly, at this point I don't know if he knows that or even cares.
“If you want to…”-it is optional. He prefaced saying something to the sort of “This probably won’t convince people, but it worked for me.” and yet you still complain. Take it for what it is.
@@TitusThundr "First he said his argument was biblical. It wasn't." It was. He showed, from the Bible, that you have to follow the Church because Christ gave authority to the Church.
@@MillionthUsername He demonstrated no such thing. He also and cannot demonstrate that "Rome" is "the church." His entire argument was a puerile fallacy meant to deceive.
@@MillionthUsername Christ gave no authority to a Catholic institution. Also that same false institution claims Christ actually gave the authority to Peter. And Peter is neither a pope or Catholic. He has nothing to do with a Catholic institution. You both have no argument exegetically nor historically.
First of all, as a Protestant I do not denigrate the BLESSED MOTHER MARY any more than I would denigrate your blessed mother or my blessed mother. Each one was blessed by God in their own way. It is true that Mary had the privilege of carrying Jesus in her womb and such, but in Jesus' own words He would say to you and to me "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” As He stretches out His hand toward all His disciples, who we are, He says, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt. 12:46-50 says that Jesus had brothers. So why do you insist that Mary was a perpetual virgin? That doesn't make sense. And why is that important that she remain a Perpetual Virgin? Your doctrine is off here, brother. By the way, the context of Matthew 18 is not that the Church is the final authority in deciding these "traditions." Jesus is teaching about reconciliation and the importance of community, and these verses illustrate the power of unity and the assurance that God is attentive to the prayers of those who come together in faith.
She had no other child, this is just what it is and you will take saint Joseph as David who received and kept the ark of the covenant. Just as David would not have used the ark of the old covenant for his personal use. Saint Joseph couldn't have gone near the Blessed virgin Mary in that way. Any sane man wouldn't even dare it not to talk of a man like saint Joseph. The trick is first understand how Holy God is and how whatever He touches becomes sacred ground. He was the blessed virgin Mary's for 9 good months.
Because they were his brothers. That does not mean that they were the children of Mary. They were either the children of Joseph from his other wife and/or children of Mary's sisters. For the second that is actually stated explicitly in the Scriptures if you are reading carefully. All of them would constitute brothers and sisters of Jesus. You take your cultural norms of who is considered as a brother/sister, and apply it to other cultures. In many parts of the world, like where I live, we today refer to our cousins as brothers/sisters and don't even have a word for cousin. Now, why to insist on her perpetual virginity? Its simple. Sam explains it in this video. Since the earliest recorded sources, those whom the Scriptures tell us were guided by the God Holly Spirit, where ever they were, they all believed this is true. So, rejecting it means rejecting the faith and teachings preserved by God Himself and stepping away from the unity of the Church. That should be more then enough of a reason. This is not a simple intellectual question, but an existential one.
They were His cousins or kinsfolk. Those kids are the children of Mary of Clopas, the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Remember, Mary was the most common female name at the time. There are 6 Marys we are introduced to in the Gospels.
@ZiggyFingers It doesn't make sense to you because you don't rightly understand that part of the scriptures yet. It is important that she remained a perpetual virgin to fulfill the scriptures, see Ezekiel 44:2. Based on your interpretation of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 18, was the catholic church right in excommunicating the reformers or not?
A small correction. Except for the reason of split, which was the question of natures and wills of Christ, which seems to be more terminological then theological issue, there are no differences between Eastern Orthodox (EO) and Oriental Orthodox (OO). Although that split took place in the 5th century, and there was virtually no communication between the two until the 20th century, EO and OO hold the same traditions and beliefs. You find differences and embracing things others don't accept only in Roman Catholicism and in extension Protestantism.
Matthew chapter 1 verse 25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." The pivital word is "till" which presumes that he knew her "after" she gave birth ti Jesus.
@@coastalrecon5523Haha I like how he Mentioned all writings of Men besides the Word of God mentions Mary is a Perpetual Virgin And Sinless 😂, maybe God just forgot to give her God like characteristics 😅
The word "knew" doesn't always mean sex in the bible. In John 2:25, John tells us Jesus "knew all men" “Until ” doesn’t imply that after she gave birth to Jesus that she had normal sexual relations with Joseph. 1 Corinthians 15:25 says that Christ “must reign until he he has put enemies under his feet.” But we know Christ will never cease to reign. The early church believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. Both Luther and Calvin believed she was a perpetual virgin. The Bible also doesn’t say Mary gave birth to any other children besides Jesus.
@RiveraDelta_Homestead Notice how you Didn't give a Single verse stating Mary was Sinless or a Perpetual Virgin but mentions the word of early catholic Heretics NOT from the Divine Revelation that Mary was Sinless and a perpetual Virgin 🤣. GET AWAY FROM THAT CULT AND READ YOUR BIBLE.
Mary would be sinless during her pregnancy Of what you have explained during that time, however she was human and was a sinner like you and me. I love Mary, she is a wonderful person, however she was a sinner like you and me. Mary also needed a Saviour like you and me. If Mary was sinless she would not need a saviour. See Luke 1:46-47
@@TriciaPerry-mz7tc So why did Christ establish the Church upon Peter? Why did Jesus give keys to heaven to Peter referencing Isaiah 22:22 if he was just as important as everyone else? Why did He say that Peter was the rock upon which the Church would be built? Paul even commands to follow spoken word of the apostoles in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the end of John's gospel says that Jesus did many other things that are not written (John 21:25). If we then look at James 5:14 the presbyters (elders) of the Church which fulfill a special role by whose action the Lord forgives sins, why would the apostoles establish this hierarchy (apostoles, presbyters, deacons) if Jesus didn't command it? And lastly Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church so the Church can't preach heresy.
@@jankowal260Christ is the Rock the Church is built on. Peter means a stone, but Christ is the Rock. All believers are built together as living stones. Jesus also called Peter Satan. 👹 Why aren't you calling him that, seeing as Jesus did? 🤔🙃
@@jankowal260 If The Jesus did not complete the Scriptures through John in Revelation, why did He Condemn anyone adding and Removing from His Word if it was not Complete😂?
@ Apart form the verse speaking about the Book of Revelation specyficaly the Scripture is completed. But tradition of the Church is also used as infallible source of teaching. Just as the apostoles tought more the Church teaches interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Does only the Roman Catholic church hold the keys to salvation? Do they? They could not answer how one can know if they are saved. They DID NOT HAVE THE ANSWER to my simple question. No one did. I found out outside of the church.
now why should i care? thats what im puzzled about. and what does it matter? if she had lawful holy relations with her husband how does that make her less of a saint
The reason to care is that the Marian dogmas reflect and protect the truth of the Incarnation, that Jesus is one eternal person who is both true God and true man. He is not a human person elevated to near-diety; not two persons, one God and one man, sort of occupying the same space; not God appearing as an illusion of man. The title Theotokos/God Bearer/Mother of God declares unambiguously that Jesus is God against the Nestorian heresy. The child in Mary's womb was 100% God from the moment of conception. The perpetual virginity of Mary reinforces this in that Mary being a virgin before during and after Jesus' birth demonstrates that His conception and birth were miraculous, and could be proven by a physical examination, even after birth. The perpetual virginity also demonstrates Christ's divinity and holiness. Her womb became holy ground, a tabernacle, that contained God Himself. Making her the Ark of the New Covenant. Her body was and still is a holy vessel reserved exclusively for God's use. This a big subject and would take a lot of time to cover adequately, and could be better done by someone else, but there are a couple of examples. God Bless.
@@youngbloodk #1----Matt 1:25 NABRE He had no relations with her until she bore a son,[f] and he named him Jesus. -#2------Amplified Bible but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation). #3--------Amplified Bible, Classic Edition But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus. -#4------Christian Standard Bible but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son.[a] And he named him Jesus. #5------Common English Bible But he didn’t have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. Joseph called him Jesus. -#6-----Complete Jewish Bible but he did not have sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Yeshua. #7-------Contemporary English Version But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. -#8---------Disciples’ Literal New Testament And he was not knowing[a] her until which time she gave-birth to a Son. And he called His name Jesus Footnotes Matthew 1:25 That is, in a sexual sense. #9------Easy-to-Read Version But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And he named him Jesus. #10-----EasyEnglish Bible Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after the baby boy was born. He said that the boy's name should be Jesus. -#11-----Evangelical Heritage Version 25 but he was not intimate with her until she gave birth to her firstborn son.[a] And he named him Jesus. #12----Expanded Bible but he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And ·Joseph [L he] named him Jesus. #13-----GOD’S WORD Translation He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus. -#14---Good News Translation But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus. -#15----Holman Christian Standard Bible but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son.[a] And he named Him Jesus. #16----International Children’s Bible But he did not have intimate relations with her until she gave birth to the son. And Joseph named the son Jesus. #17-----International Standard Version He did not have marital relations with[ her until she had given birth to a son;[b] and he named him Jesus. #18-----J.B. Phillips New Testament 24-25 When Joseph woke up he did what the angel had told him. He married Mary, but had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. Then he gave him the name Jesus. #19-----Legacy Standard Bible but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. #20-------Lexham English Bible and did not have sexual relations with[a] her until she gave birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. #20------Living Bible but she remained a virgin until her Son was born; and Joseph named him “Jesus.” -#21---The Message Then Joseph woke up. He did exactly what God’s angel commanded in the dream: He married Mary. But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus. -#22-----Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament but (kai) he had no (ou) marital (ginōskō) relations with her (autos) until (heōs hos) she
had given (tiktō) birth to a son (hyios) and he (kai) called (kaleō-ho) him (autos) Jesus (Iēsous) #23----Names of God Bible He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Yeshua -#24----.New American Bible (Revised Edition) He had no relations with her until she bore a son,[a] and he named him Jesus. #25-----New American Standard Bible [a]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. #26----New American Standard Bible 1995 [a]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. -#27----New Catholic Bible but he engaged in no marital relations[a] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus. -#27---New Century Version but he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to the son. And Joseph named him Jesus. -#28---New English Translation but did not have marital relations[a] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus. Footnotes Matthew 1:25 tn Or “did not have sexual relations”; Grk “was not knowing her.” The verb “know” (in both Hebrew and Greek) is a frequent biblical euphemism for sexual relations. However, a translation like “did not have sexual relations with her” was considered too graphic in light of the popularity and wide use of Matthew’s infancy narrative. Thus the somewhat less direct but still clear “did not have marital relations” was preferred. #29-----New International Reader's Version But he did not sleep with her until she gave birth to a son. And Joseph gave him the name Jesus. -#30----New International Version But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. -#30----New International Version - UK But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. #31----New Life Version But he did not have her, as a husband has a wife, until she gave birth to a Son. Joseph gave Him the name Jesus. -#32---New Living Translation But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus. #33----New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus. #34-----New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus. -#35---New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus. -#36---New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus. -#37---New Testament for Everyone but he didn’t have sexual relations with her until after the birth of her son. And he gave him the name Jesus. -#38---Tree of Life Version But he did not know her intimately until she had given birth to a Son. And he called His name Yeshua. -#39---The Voice (though he did not consummate their marriage until after her son was born). And when the baby was born, Joseph named Him Jesus, Savior. #40----World English Bible and didn’t know her sexually until she had given birth to her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. #41----Worldwide English (New Testament) But he did not make love with her until her first son had been born. He named him Jesus. --- All the bibles that SAY they had SEX!! EVEN over 3 catholic bibles!!!!
2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child until the day of her death; just means she’d never had children throughout her entire life. It doesn’t say anything of what she did after the day of her death. So this passage in Matthew 1:25, I would ask a Protestant who brings this up, what is Matthew’s point? What is he trying to get across? Is Matthew trying to tell the reader, “My point is that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born.” That’s not his concern. That’s not Matthew’s main point in Matthew Chapter One. His main point is that Jesus does not have an earthly father. Jesus’ Father is God the Father. We know that because Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations before Jesus was born. That is the main point he’s trying to get across. He’s not saying anything about what happened after Jesus was born. His main point is about the span of events that took place before Jesus was born. In fact, John Calvin, the Protestant reformer John Calvin, said of Matthew 1:25 and the perpetual virginity of Mary, “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.” In fact, belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was something most of the Reformers believed in: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli. So Mary’s virginity was something that was believed in even well past the Protestant Reformation.
Doesn't believe what? In dogmas of some church that made them up 8, 15 or even 18 centuries after the fact??? We believe in the sinlessness of Jesus and my Bible tells me there was NO OTHER man or woman totally without sin OTHER than Jesus.
"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Matthew 1.
@johnfrancis4401 dude, how could you possibly say that? Read the scripture again. He did not consummate their marriage UNTIL Jesus was born. This whole perpetual virginity of Mary belief is unbiblical and ludicrous. It stuns me how genuine Christians can get so blinded by Catholic nonsense like this. Blindness is actually the right word, as arguing sense with them doesn't seem to work, it takes a supernatural work of God to open their eyes.
@ You just don’t understand the phraseology. All it means is that he did not consummate the marriage before Jesus was born. It doesn’t necessarily mean it was consummated after. You are making assumptions. Besides there have been apparitions of Our Lady at Lourdes, at Fatima where over 70,000 people saw the sun spinning and dancing, at Guadeloupe, in Medjugorje where Our Lady introduces herself as the EVER VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD. Of course 70,000 people were hallucinating, the cactus fibres of Guadeloupe is a fake painting, Lourdes is a hoax despite the hundreds of miracles. Sola Scriptura is not everything The Mother of God doesn’t lie.
The reason to care is that the Marian dogmas reflect and protect the truth of the Incarnation, that Jesus is one eternal person who is both true God and true man. He is not a human person elevated to near-diety; not two persons, one God and one man, sort of occupying the same space; not God appearing as an illusion of man. The title Theotokos/God Bearer/Mother of God declares unambiguously that Jesus is God against the Nestorian heresy. The child in Mary's womb was 100% God from the moment of conception. The perpetual virginity of Mary reinforces this in that Mary being a virgin before during and after Jesus' birth demonstrates that His conception and birth were miraculous, and could be proven by a physical examination, even after birth. The perpetual virginity also demonstrates Christ's divinity and holiness. Her womb became holy ground, a tabernacle, that contained God Himself. Making her the Ark of the New Covenant. Her body was and still is a holy vessel reserved exclusively for God's use. This a big subject and would take a lot of time to cover adequately, and could be better done by someone else, but there are a couple of examples. God Bless.
0 - 10:00: Coming to the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is one error. But claiming that it is anchored, even implicitly, in Scripture is delusional. The doctrine is actually disproved explicitly in Scripture. You don't even bother addressing how Jesus had brothers and sisters: "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us? So they were offended at Him" (Mark 6:3). (See also John 7:1-5 and Matthew 13:55-56). Furthermore, even if Mary's children were not mentioned, it would still not mean that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She did get married. You agree with that, right? A man getting married and never having sex with his wife? Now that would be a miracle. This pet doctrine accomplishes nothing. It has no point. In Matthew 18:17-20, the church is said to have authority for matters of church discipline. In Matthew 16:18-19, the church is shown to have authority to determine who to recognize as a believer so as to build the church. That doesn't mean it has the authority to change the reality of Mary's virginal status or that the church has authority over Scripture. 10:00 - end Why does the idea of the agreement in doctrine as a test for true doctrine apply only in the first several hundred years before the split, instead of being disproved after it? What is so magical about the first four centuries? 11:00 (Helvitius): With regard to Mary's perpetual virginity being argued by Jerome to school Helvitius, what exactly was Jerome's argument?: "You should agree with me because my position has the greater number of people"? Was there any other argument? In any case, agreement in the early church is irrelevant. Agreement was only necessary among the apostles and even then only applicable with regard to their inspired writings. They did have their disagreements. After the apostles, agreement is not how true doctrine is known. There is no guarantee that the HS empowers post apostolic believers to have perfect doctrine. That's why there has always been so much disagreement. Love you Sam but not your delusions.
It's not an error according to the Universal Church, which all held the same belief as he said in this video, guided and reminded of the truth by the Holy Spirit. If they all share that same belief and affirm that doctrine then it is essentially blasphemous to the Holy Spirit to claim that doctrine is wrong. This is the point Sam is making.
@@cartert3792 How far does the "universal church" argument go? How do you even know who the Christians were in the first few centuries? We don't even know who they are today. If the majority of so-called Christians denied the divinity of Jesus, would you do the same? Joseph and Mary had other sons and daughters. It's right there in the Scripture. You didn't deal with that. What we imagine isn't going to change that. You cannot put what people believe, even if it is a lot of people, above the Scripture or, for that matter, above reality. Samoun said, "No one can answer that." Absolute rubbish. I'm sure many people can just as I did. But no one has a suitable answer for me. Samoun is a very knowledgeable man. I was very surprised when I watched this video.
If agreement was only necessary among the Apostles as you claim, who was Paul addressing in 1 Corinthians 1:10 saying, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that *all of you agree,* and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment?" The Corinthian church or the Apostles?
@ @cartert3792 Why does the "unity reveals the truth" model only apply to the first four hundred years of the church? Why doesn't the current state of disunity prove the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity wrong? The reason there seems to be unity on the issue in the early church is likely to be because the people who think it is important enough to bring up in their writing are those who believe it and teach it. As far as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit goes, I don't see the Spirit bringing unity by working contrary to the very Scripture He inspired, which says Jesus had brothers and sisters.
@ @Mission-520 Paul was addressing the Corinthians, and you've basically proven my point, not yours. Paul was telling the Corinthians to have unity because they did not have it. You are conflating the state of affairs with what should be the state of affairs. All believers should be unified, but they cannot be held accountable for it if the Scripture says contradictory things. That's why the apostles had to be unified in what they taught. And when you are held accountable, is it going to be for whether you agreed with bishops in the early church, who themselves ignored what Matthew and John wrote, or whether you believed what is written in Scripture?
Mathew 1:25 If anyone reads Mathew 1:25 , what will be the conclusion? Wouldn’t it be so easy to write Joseph never met Mary? You think the Holy Spirit would inspire to confuse people? On top of that why talk so much about Mary , taking the attention of Jesus? And didn’t that docrine arise in James Gospel 150ad? Does any church accept that gospel?
Matthew 1:25 only creates confusion when read in English with certain assumptions. When read in the original Greek, the phrasing does not necessarily imply one way or another; although various church fathers would argue that it leans towards perpetual virginity. It would be easy to write a lot of things, yet the Bible does not clearly define a lot of things. So expecting something like this to be clearly defined is not a point against the argument of perpetual virginity. The only confusion comes from assumptions based upon the language, not the Holy Spirit. If you feel confused based on the verse, that is good reasoning to do more research and reading. Talking about Mary in no way diminishes the attention of Jesus. She is the mother of God, and Jesus loved her dearly, so we too should love her dearly. Also, this argument can be used to say we should stop talking about all the apostles and Moses and Elijah and David and so on. Talking about Biblical figures does not diminish God's glory. While the Protoevangelium of James is not accepted by any church as scripture due to being written after James' death, the argument for perpetual virginity is not based on it. The Church bases it off of the Bible and Church teaching. Actually, the Protoevangelium of James gives support for how many early Christians believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, since it is still a historical document, regardless of being it apocrypha.
If someone concludes something on my 1:25 is virgin útil birth You say something not clearly defined is not an argument against the perpetual virginity! It works the other way around, to establish a doctrine you should have a clear bible teaching! Do you desagree? No one makes doctrines about Moses Elijah or David based on something not clear, as you do with Mary Based on your “Mother of God arguments why don’t you read the geneoly and honor the grandpa of God? Or the great grandpa of God and so on? Where in the Bible do you base the perpetual virginity of Mary? And wich church teaching before that Gospel ?
Samoramis from the book of Jeremiah is not the same as the woman in revelation who was taken up and crowned and clothed with the heavens and gave birth to Jesus and his church. Next question
Die Protestanten waren es die die Kirchen geplündert haben, die Protestanten waren es die Hexen verbrannt haben, die Protestanten waren es die wiedertäufer ermordet haben, die Protestanten waren es die einen großen Krieg mit Christen angezettelt haben.
@@MichaelHowardMonroeit’s all this focus on a Virgin Mary. Skip the entire Bible and focus on this MADE UP person. It’s crazy to Base their entire life on this ONE person. Sad stupid
@@MichaelHowardMonroe no he didn’t. He explicitly said that it would be mockery to God to believe in the dogma. He just didn’t believe Matthew 1:25 proved it. Even Catholic Answers concedes this. And it wasn’t just Calvin. As far back as a second century, ECFs like Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and then later St Victorinus rejected the dogma. Importantly, the New Testament does not support it.
What sensible man believes in the perpetual virginity of a married woman as if that is a righteous thing, rather than sinful? What sensible man believes that another man under the Mosaic law is going to knowingly marry a young virgin who will never give him the marital due? When Joseph found out she was pregnant, he was going to divorce her. So, this kind of nonsensical doctrine arises from individuals who believe they are holier than God, when they make marital sex out to be a sin. They in turn defile Mary and make her out to be a sinner by denying her husband the marital obligation. The doctrine is clearly not of the truth, but of the adversary.
What happens if the bishops in conjunction with Pope teach heresy or allow it? I mean I guess if theres one Bishop whos legit (Athenasius for example) then were still good but I worry these current Catholic prelates in the majority dont follow the traditional faith?
I presume you're not catholic from your comment. If you worry that the leadership of a church that Christ promised his eternal divine protection would fail, but you are not worried that the leadership of your protestant church which does not enjoy the same divine protection as the catholic church would fail, is your faith in Christ or in someone else? Who do you believe as a believer?
@Mission-520 I'm not protestant but Catholic from birth, I'm not sure you're following what I was stating? I don't doubt that Christ will protect his Church more how you respond to heretics within it? Your swinging after the bell a bit.
@georgediaz9869 That is not true; you should read it more carefully. At no point does scripture state that the Blessed Virgin Mary is anyone's mother but Jesus'. It also does not say she and Joseph had marital relations after Jesus' birth. The scripture calls certain people brother and sisters, never identifying a parent. It also only stipulates that Mary and Joseph did not have relations before the birth of Jesus. It says nothing about afterwards. Also, the fact that they ALL agree about an issue in the first several hundred years of the Church might be clue that any modern re-interpretation that contradicts it is most-likely wrong. The early Church was not a bunch of morons. They faithfully believed and passed on what they received from the Apostles and were willingly martyred for it. Look at the Faith they died for, and you will see it was not Protestant. It was thoroughly Catholic/Orthodox. No person honestly looking at the early Church writing can deny that. The best they can do is say, like the Mormons, that Jesus lied and the whole Church went to hell-in-a-hand-basket immediately after the death of the last apostle.
@@deadmoney5580 bruh there are clear scriptures where they tell Jesus your mother brothers and sisters are looking for him and he says those who do the will of my Father are my mother, brother and sisters. That’s scripture you are gonna add and say that’s not what it says Matthew 12:50
According to scripture, why would the Holy Spirit allow the WHOLE body of Christians to believe doctrines such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, the Eucharist, confession, etc. for *1500 years* until the protest?
Sam I watched manies videos of you and I used to admire you but now I see you as a FALSE teacher and idolatry promoter, you went back to your erroneous believe
Jesus had dual role during incarnation, one as God's son, two as Mary (and Joseph's) son. When Joseph ("a good man" who kept quiet about Mary's pregnancy to protect both Mary and the unborn Jesus) passed away his brothers (James, Judas, Joses, Simone) and unnamed sisters were looking for him to work and support the family instead of talking nonsense. (Catholic claims they were from Joseph 's previous marriage).
Matthew 1:25 Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus birth. One must validate with scripture. Even the church can get it wrong just as Israel did in the old covenant and went away from God. Jesus told a church to repent or he will remove their lamp stand. This does not change the Word of God or who He is. It just means humans can still come up with their own unnecessary ideas. Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and may people realize erroneous teachings and repent for adding and taking away from the bible.
Show me in the bible where it says Mary ever had sex? By the concept of solar scriptura if it’s not there - you don’t believe it - the bible doesn’t ever claim Mary had sex.
The scripture verifies that Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Jesus. Prior to splitting apart all the Churches believe Marry was a virgin, because God would have made it known to the Churches, if she wasn’t. Okay. Was then Joseph a holy man or a man from the Levi tribe? What was Joseph purpose for marrying Mary in the first place? So the Angel told Joseph has take Mary for his wife and to sorely be a guardian to Jesus and Mary and nothing more? If so why then Joseph wasn’t more involved with Jesus life? Shouldn’t Joseph be like a disciple to Jesus or making his mission to please Jesus? And why Mary wasn’t side by side with Jesus throughout his mission? Did Mary have her own church because she was the mother of Jesus the son God at that time and that’s why she couldn’t follow Jesus? If you believe that Mary was a virgin and Joseph was a saint for what he did, then I would think we would hear and read more about Mary and Joseph in the Bible, but they were rarely mentioned. So I got to believe Mary and Joseph were chosen also because they were ordinary people.
Changing position because the church is the authority? Why did Martin Luther change his position on the “church”? If I walked into a “church” and they were preaching a false gospel would I then have the right to discern that? If the Holy Spirt is our teacher then he will guide us into all truth. I will trust that. So if Jesus defense against the devil was scripture , that will be my defense . If scripture tells me one thing and the “church” says the opposite I will say the “church” is in error . The “church” in context of scripture is a body of believers , it’s the the papacy that lays out in the Roman Catholic system either . Catholics always go back and claim this authority because of Peter. And since they claim this “authority” all judgements by the Catholic system and the grey of reason, philosophy lie in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church as the authority , not scripture alone . This man’s approach on trying to convince this other man in the perpetual virginity of Mary is just crazy. He tries to go to the church being the authority and skips all the versus in the Bible that PROVES , Mary was not a virgin until death, Joseph KNEW Mary. And Jesus infact had biological syblings
Sam, is an apostate, he has bought into the lies of Satan and Sam is twisting the word of God just like the Devil, and is leading many astray from the truth of what God's word says about Mary. He knows that Mary had children and is not a perpetual virgin.
But Paul commands to follow spoken word 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the end of John's gospel says that Jesus did many other things that are not written (John 21:25). If we then look at James 5:14 the presbyters (elders) of the Church which fulfill a special role by whoe action the Lord forgives sins, why would the apostoles establish this hierarchy (apostoles, presbyters, deacons) if Jesus didn't command it? Why did Jesus give keys to heaven to Peter referencing Isaiah 22:22 if he was just as important as everyone else? Why did He say that Peter was the rock upon which the Church would be built? And lastly Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church so the Church can't preach heresy.
@ well , I wrote a reply to you on this , but it was deleted and I didn’t violate anything, so the owner of this channel deleted my comment , probably because he doesn’t want the truth there .
@@Stephen-vk3ej RUclips deletes comments itself even if it doesn't violate anything, it happened to me several times. Try posting your comment in parts to see what gets censored.
@@jankowal260 how can you say that Peter was the first pope based on what Jesus told Peter upon this rock I will build my church . All this resembles is his faith. Look what Peter did , he raised people from the dead , healed how many different diseases . The same miracles Jesus did, Peter did. I will say this. The Bible was written. Nothing can be added or taken out of it . If the apostles were specifically chosen for that specific time by Jesus himself, even apostle Paul audibly and physically met Jesus on the road to Damascus . This is different than when people are born again. In John 3 , it lays this divine intervention out. Every believer till this day experiences the regeneration of the heart and the intellectual understanding of sin, their sin, and who Jesus is . That divine drawing to Christ by the Holy Spirit is only granted by the father which was pre destined to happen before the foundation of the world. Now argue that all you want but his sovereignty and his ordinances are true , and it’s in scripture. Someone born of the spirit of God , is Gods doing , not ours. This is diffent than what Peter expiernced , John, apostle Paul , they met the risen lord . We have not . Believes know Christ by the Holy Spirit and his word. Exactly why he told Thomas about the holes in his hands and feet, people who doubt and don’t believe just because they haven’t seen. The Holy Spirit is our comforter. I will close with this because I already wrote a book. If I sat in a Catholic Church and did not question why this and why that , then how can a believer discern what is true and not true. Who is our teacher. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and promised that no one can snatch them out of my father’s hand . I and the father are 1. I believe that’s John 10. So , with that being said , I know who my teacher is and I know when my soul is spiritually fed. It don’t get fed by tansubstantion, as the Catholics believe. The wafer and whine is not who Jesus is. The context of Christ in that situation is not. literal.
The passage in Matheu has specific reference to when a brother wronged another! It is not a passage that refer to the church per say, but more how to handle conflict within the church community! It in no way, whatsoever, set the church on a higher footing vis-a-vis the "Word of God", aka, the Bible! Not even in reference!! Secondly: It is in no way saying the "church" can make any decision, and God in heaven will endorse it! All decisions made by the church, should be measured against God, and that is done by following the Word of God! The Bible should be the authority, and the church the instrument through which that authority is applied! Therefore, if the "church" does NOT follow the Bible/scripture, then the "church's" applied authority is simply not binded in heaven! The "church" cannot be an authority above God! God gave us His word, scripture/Bible so we may know His way and His wish. We cannot apply higher authority that God on earth! God, by Jesus and in the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority, NOT THE CHURCH! The "church" is second to God and His word! Not you, and not the false church of Catholicism will ever get me to accept it the other way, never!! Even just applying ones mind, logically, one has to accept that God is the ultimate authority, not a church, and surely not the Roman Catholic Church, that does not even follow Scripture completely! The only tangible, logical and realistic way to seek Gods authority, is in scripture! He gave that to us so we can know what it is he wants us to do! The church is subservient to that! If that does not make sense to you or anyone, then it simply means you have stayed from God, and His word! Simple as that!!!
Mary had other children (for example, James)after the birth of Jesus, which the Bible states clearly. Joseph was the father of these kids. Sex = Mary is not a perpetual virgin. Also, the church on earth can make decisions that are bogus and unbiblical, for example teaching that Mary 100% went to heaven, infant baptism, or that priests must be celibate, although most of the disciples probably had wives by the time they met Christ.
Guess what. The RCC church tried to condemn Wycliffe and burn his bones. You think the religious institution has power over God? He is in heaven despite the attempt to curse him to hell by burning his bones.
I love you Sam and think you have amazing insight on so many things - but can't go with you on this one! Your argument in the end does not really come down to what is in scripture but on 'look at the oldest traditions - would the Lord allow His Church to get it so wrong?' Yes. Sincere people can be wrong! Paul was warning about 'preaching another gospel' within 30-odd years after Jesus walked the planet. That is why the New Testament was agreed on...... to say, this is what we believe, in writing! To counteract all the wild stuff that had already started to circulate, as early as the disciples time!! Doesn't take long for humans to find a rut and full in love with it! And looking at what you would call 'the Church' throughout the centuries, I can honestly say that in the main, it does not reflect the gospel of Christ. Full of crooks actually! It is a smokescreen - it has taken the Truth and wrapped it in lies! Sparkle, sparkle, razzle dazzle! All that glitters is not gold. I believe 'the Church' is a whole load of individual Christians/believers in all walks of life, all over the world, seeking the Lord in Spirit and in Truth. By your fruit you shall be known. So, sola scripture for me - because it is the only reliable source. And if I read the gospels, I find a woman who indeed was blessed, but I don't get no perpetual virgin! It think it is important because other 'religions' are also based on 'traditions' handed down. Just cos it's tradition doesn't make it true.
But Paul commands to follow spoken word 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the end of John's gospel says that Jesus did many other things that are not written (John 21:25). If we then look at James 5:14 the presbyters (elders) of the Church which fulfill a special role by whoe action the Lord forgives sins, why would the apostoles establish this hierarchy (apostoles, presbyters, deacons) if Jesus didn't command it? Why did Jesus give keys to heaven to Peter referencing Isaiah 22:22 if he was just as important as everyone else? Why did He say that Peter was the rock upon which the Church would be built? And lastly Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church so the Church can't preach heresy.
Matthew 1:24-25 NKJV [24] Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, [25] and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Genesis 4:1 NKJV [1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” Lucky for us, Scripture explains Scripture. Church tradition that was spoken of, is after Christianity was put in the hands of Roman Governors and Politicians. I don't trust Politicians.
It is NOT ignoring the context of the bible to understand that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. It is your choice to believe that, but the bible does not support your belief.
According to the church fathers, the answer to where all of them got this idea was in an extra-biblical source (adding to the scriptures...) that claimed Jesus was born in a fantastical way... No afterbirth, no umbilical cord, just... simply... appeared. This comes from the protoevangelium of James, or the "Gospel of James." This book does not appear in any of the Bibles, even in the Catholic Bible, yet it is still taught in the Catholic church. It says that not only was Mary a virgin before getting pregnant, she was virgin during birth and a virgin after birth until death. The "Gospel of James" was written c.170 AD. Whoever adds to or deletes these words...
It is inconceivable that a pious Jew like Joseph, knowing what he does about Mary and Jesus, would approach her for conjugal relations. Then there is that Old Testament guy who touches the falling ark of the covenant and dies. The ark is clearly a prefigurement of Mary who bore God in her womb. Then in John 19, when the hour has finally come, the newly reborn baby disciple is entrusted to THE Woman whose seed crushed the head of Satan on the cross. Then Mary is entrusted to her new son the disciple because there is no biological son to take charge of her care. If we read the Bible the way the authors and the hearers of the NT think, read and write scripture this is cl ear. Jesus taught us to pray the Our Father. We, the born again, are a family and Mary is our blessed virgin mother. Jesus is the second Adam who recapitulates creation wresting humanity and the whole world from the dominion of Satan. Mary is the new Eve.
but if you would study historical context for instance, we know that James who wrote the book of James is Jesus earthy brother. who bore him? though the Catholics may argue that he was his half brother, this is not unecuivically proven in scripture or history. The men mr Sam is mentioning who rebuked someone for saying mary bore other children, are not within the biblical error.
My faith in entering heaven and worshiping God is not dependent on my belief that Mary is sinless, whenever I die, Mary is coming to take me to heaven, or I spend some time before Mass begins to pray to the Virgin Mary. It Jesus Christ that died for me on the cross.
Do you still have to physically ingest God to inherit eternal life and to be able to resurrect, when Jesus Christ showed up to stop all the pagan rituals by dying on the cross to put an end to it? Then the same ritual belief is transferred over onto Jesus Christ that He tried to stop. The mithraic religion was practiced in Rome at the time of Constantine. They easily converted.
You change because you are a chameleon and you know nothing about the origin of pagan Roman Catholicism. How they carried their pagan practices and mixed it with Christianity. Like Mary and baby Jesus in RC is Semiramis and Nimrod. An ancient pagan icon known to many civilization - mother and child. Sun god worship very obvious in RC church design.
You don't know what your saying,we believe in mother and son to be Mary and Jesus,not the pegan practice.You don't know that what you believe is very important,what you believe is strong that why Jesus want the Jews to believe his the son of God because our believe is strong.what you believe work for you.
Satan knows these scriptures and can deceive. " 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them."
That is correct. The Catholic Church did not leave. The Roman Catholic "Church" left. By the way, if that confuses you, the name of the "Eastern Orthodox" Churches is "One Holly Catholic and Apostolic Church".
@ Not only that RC was a small part of the Church at that time, but just look at the Oriental Orthodox. They split from the Church before RC, while Rome was still part of the Church. Then Rome split (or as you think Orthodox did). For 15 centuries RC and Orthodox had no contact with Oriental Orthodox. Then they made contact. The only difference between EO and OO is the same that was 15 centuries ago. RC has a whole list of dogmas and traditions that are entirely different from EO and OO. So, its either that EO and OO, by accident, changed their dogmas and traditions, including the view of the Pope of Rome, in the exact same way, or they kept the Apostolic faith and tradition, and RC was changing it. Also, the main reason for the EO/RC split was filioque, and addition to the Nicene creed. Third ecumenical council anathemised anyone who would add anything to the creed. And anathemized from the body of Christ, you are no longer guided by the God Holly Spirit, so its easy to change true dogmas and tradition, since there is no protection from God. You choose in which you would believe.
@@goranvuksa1220 wrong. Catholic Christian since the beginning was in Rome. *East* *Church* : - Jerussalem lead by Yakobus Adelphos (James) - Anthioch Syria lead by Lukas - Alexandria Egypt lead by Markus *West* *Church* : - Rome lead by Simon Petrus (Peter)
No doubt she was pure and remained pure while she carried Jesus in her womb. For that she was truly blessed above all other women. Having other children while in a marriage would not diminish her value and holiness in the eyes of God. Why the “Church” would hold on to that is beyond my understanding when such versus as Acts 1:14 is so clear.
If she had other children Jesus would’ve NEVER entrusted her to St John when he was on the cross. Mary would’ve simply gone to live with any of her other children.
I’m think that is speculation on your part brother. Just as I could speculate that Jesus perhaps in trusted John because he knew John would achieve great things as an apostle and preferred him to guide her through her continued spiritual journey. Again Acts 1:14 and Matthew 13:55 and so on. I’m not trying to argue, I’m just trying to understand the reasoning behind this within Catholicism.
@@ronyc3270 The reasoning is that Mary is the untouchable Arc of the Covenant. And when you look at the names of the supposed brothers of Jesus half of the names is brought up refering to children of Mary of Clopas without distinction so we can reason they weren't siblings.
@@jankowal260There is some ambiguity in some versus, but Acts 1:14 is clear with stating Mary, the mother of Jesus… My opinion for what ever is worth, is that she is Holy and could be considered a human tabernacle for her roll in carrying the Lord in her wound. I just don’t see anything that puts her in a position of authority and praise through images of candles and statues and funneling requests through her. So the question I would have then would be, who saves your soul, Jesus and the saints, or only Jesus?
@@ronyc3270 "who saves..." That depends of what you mean by saved. If He hadn't died for me I couldn't be saved but the saints intercede for us before Him and thanks to that intercision He gives us more graces than if we would just pray by ourselves because the saints are as righteous as can be and the prayer of the righteous is worth more. Edit: And it seems the first part of your comment is cut.
@@saycheese6773 God does say in His Word that He opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. I can't listen to Shamoun as I don't see real humility. I actually see a bully
Originally, the church was the Jewish church. Jesus comes, and it DIVIDES. Jews and Messianic Jews (All the apostles considered they were Jews or converting to Jews that followed Jesus' teachings). During the first century, they started categorizing them as Christians, and called the "universal" church (which gives us the name Catholic), not as a proper name, but as an adjective. ALL THIS is in the first century. It's not until Constantine that they START calling it the Roman CATHOLIC Church during the Nicean coucil (let's be honest, why would Jewish people would call their church after the country that so much despised them? Roman? Really?). The first mention of Mary's perpetual virginity was in the protoevangelium of James (the "first" gospel of James), a book from the second century even Catholics consider apocryphal. In Acts 1: 23 -26, the apostles prayed for a correct choice of who to take Judas' place. Can any catholic tell me how many "hail Mary"s did the apostles pray? How many times do you people think the apostles went to ash Wednesday? How many times did they recite the Confiteor prayer? How many times did the apostles celebrated Eucharist? Jesus taught A, then men invented B.
The church is roman in the sense that it serves the bishop of rome, and thus roman, and its cannonical law is structered after the roman system. Its not that the early church wasnt Catholic.
@@antoniussukardi9029What Salvation 😂? IF She was Sinless, Perpetual Virgin and all these other Gifts Catholics bestowed on Mary why didn't the Scriptures simply mention it😂?
@ salvation is available for those aware or unaware. We can access the holy father directly in the name of the son always and be filled with his Holy Spirit personally. She to would have pointed you all to do all as HE says. Not my words. Scripture
Ok, this is kind of ridiculous. Mary was chosen by God to deliver and raise Jesus, but she was not 'holy'. Looking at Jesus' words in Luke: Luke 13:2-4 New American Standard Bible 2 And Jesus responded and said to them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans just because they have suffered this fate? 3 No, I tell you, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or do you think that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse offenders than all the other people who live in Jerusalem? The reverse is also true. Mary was blessed BECAUSE she gave birth to Jesus, but God could have chosen other women who fit the qualifications. God could have given birth to Jesus through any humble God-fearing woman who fit the criteria. Balam's donkey wasn't 'special' or 'blessed above all donkeys' because it talked. Mary was blessed above all women because of Jesus, not despite Him. Deifying Mary (a mortal) is where this line of thought is trying to lead. Remember, outside of the birth announcement, all the angels sent to talk to Jesus' parents ALWAYS addressed Joseph, not Mary. Addressing 'writings' as valid just because they are old is not good. There were MANY false teachings beginning in the church in the time of Paul and he writes specifically about them. Mark 7:6-7 New American Standard Bible Followers of Tradition 6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. 7 And in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ The reason the early 'traditions and thoughts' of the early Church were not put into the Bible was because they were not necessary to get us to where God was taking us. If they were that important, they would be in scripture.
@@coastalrecon5523 Sure Bud, You believe in Your Sinless, Perpetual Married Virgin Mary that's Co-Redeemer and Co-Madiatrix Without the scriptures mentioning any of these Important Facts because God simply forgot to Say She is the Queen of Heaven😂
Dude how do you not know these are FAQ that have been debunked a billion times lol. That same word used in the original manuscripts can also be used of cousins or half brothers, so no this doesn’t prove anything.
How on earth would God in all His might would send His only Son God and man to be born in and and be raised by a regular woman but not the most Holly woman that ever existed. Please!! The argument against Mary is just an anticatholic argument stsrted not even by Martin Luther.
Sex in marriage is what holy women do. If they don't engage in sex with their husband there is actually something wrong as the Bible clearly explains. But hey mix in some Roman/Greek/Babylonia religion and you get to such things.. same as requesting priests nit to marry. That's not something from the Bible.
Jesus chastised the scribes and the Pharisees for their traditions. And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION." ... “Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do.” {Mark 7:9&13} But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?” {Matthew 15:3} “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the *tradition of men* as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” {Mark 7:8} Paul, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the *tradition of men* after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {Colossians 2:8}
Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished unto all good works* {2 Timothy 3:15-17} Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: *for thy testimonies are my meditation* {Psalm 119:98-99} *Thy word* is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. {Psalm 119:105} The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple* {Psalm 119:130} The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, *making wise the simple* {Psalm 19:7}
@@larrybedouin2921 1 Is it essential to know the canon of Scripture? That is, if we are to be guided only by Scripture, is it not true that we have to agree on what Scripture is? However, we do not know the canon of Scripture through Scripture. We know it through the aforementioned testimony of the Holy Fathers, or if you want to accept it from the Church itself, through the tradition of the church. 2_I speak of the tradition of the church, not of any tradition, that you use the word "tradition" as a mere human invention, is your invention. Tradition is rejected by Protestants because they believe that tradition implies human doctrines as opposed to divine teaching, which is false. 3 Thess 2, 15 where St. Paul says: “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you have learned from us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” The main concept that is spoken of in the text is Tradition, the two sub-concepts that underlie it are Scripture and the oral teaching of the Church, of the apostles. 4_ there is no place where the Bible says that Scripture is necessary and sufficient for salvation 5 2 Pet 3:16: “There are things in them (the writings of St. Paul) that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and the weak interpret, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” We must recognize the difficulty of certain passages of Scripture and, therefore, that we have no guarantee that particular individuals will interpret it correctly on all occasions. In 2 Pet 1:20-21 it says “Keep in mind that no prophecy of Scripture can be interpreted by one's own will, for no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” With this text, St. Peter is finally saying that those who interpret Scripture privately do so outside the confines of the teaching Church. This does not mean that Catholics cannot read the Bible or have our opinions on what it says or interpret it. But we must always submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Greetings.
@@larrybedouin2921 1 Is it essential to know the canon of Scripture? That is, if we are to be guided only by Scripture, is it not true that we have to agree on what Scripture is? However, we do not know the canon of Scripture through Scripture. We know it through the aforementioned testimony of the Holy Fathers, or if you want to accept it from the Church itself, through the tradition of the church.
@@larrybedouin2921 2_I speak of the tradition of the church, not of any tradition, that you use the word "tradition" as a mere human invention, is your invention. Tradition is rejected by Protestants because they believe that tradition implies human doctrines as opposed to divine teaching, which is false. 3 Thess 2, 15 where St. Paul says: “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you have learned from us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” The main concept that is spoken of in the text is Tradition, the two sub-concepts that underlie it are Scripture and the oral teaching of the Church, of the apostles.
Sham using tmusing this scriptures out if context by concluding their belief about perpetual. And how you assured that before the splitting of the Church that the Christians believe in perpetual of Mary. If you use solo scriptural what verses of the Bible that proves the perpetual of Mary and align with the Historical evidence of the first Church established by the Apostles? Or just using this scriptures to deceived many and not aligned with the True Gospel of Jesus. Even the name Mary did not mentioned in other books as she has the big part to a Christian beliefs. Even Paul and Peter will not agree with your stand because they did preach the Gospel even to their written books that portrayed Mary's perpetual.
The Arc of the Convent could not be touched, so much so for the True Arc who held the True Manna come down from Heaven in her womb, whom all generations would call her Blessed, except by Prots who do not know historic sacred teaching.
@JeanMarieDuchesne granted but why would god force her live a life what to many woman ( especially back then ) to an unnatural life of abstinence especially as he knew that she was doomed to outlive her child in my mined god would not be so cruel and give her many children to comfort and care fore her in her old age as fore Sarah that was a different miracle and what was needed for her to conceive
Paul said listen to me because I am giving you Gods word , the early church would have followed the same principle. Sam has it exactly backwards. The clear passage of scriptures is that jesus had other brothers and sisters.
Why did the Lord allow the universal church to come up with the perpetual virginity? A better question to ask would be why did jesus allow the Scriptures to claim Mary had other brothers and sisters? Again, Sam has it exactly backwards.
@@joelacona6057 The issue is the Greek words for brothers and sisters used in those verses can mean both biological siblings and close relatives. That's the issue. You can't just assume it must be the meaning you prefer when the words have both meanings. The question then becomes what meaning was intended in those verses? This is why context matters. Catholics consider these things: 1) Jesus gave his mother to John as he died and Mary went with John and lived with him. So John took charge of her after her son died. This would've been impossible if she had other sons after Jesus whom the law of God commanded to take care of her after both Joseph and Jesus died. The idea that she would've gone to someone else would've been impossible. You also don't get the impression that there were other children when Jesus was lost at the temple when he was twelve. 2) The attitudes of these brothers: Mary was fully aware that Jesus performed miracles as seen in the scene at the wedding of Cana. She was a believer. Yet these "brothers" of his were oblivious of this side of Jesus! When Jesus went public, they were as shocked as everyone else. Instead of believers, they thought Jesus was insane! - It simply beggars belief that they had spent three decades under the same roof with Jesus, Mary, and Joseph and we're this unaware of Jesus' "other" side. It's more likely that Mary was very aware and comfortable with Jesus doing these things because she had witnessed this aspect for thirty years, but these men called brothers were completely unaware because they were not witnesses; they never lived with Jesus but were merely relatives with limited exposure to him. - In addition, these brothers felt comfortable trying to take charge over Jesus and trying to force him to stop his ministry, yet we're supposed to believe they were younger brothers...in that culture and laws? How? Jesus would've had the authority over them, especially after Joseph died, not the other way around. But if these were make relatives like older cousins of Jesus, then their behavior and assumption (that they could do that) then makes more sense. 3) Lastly, the names given for the brothers seem to match (the first two) those of Jesus' cousins (sons of his mother's sister) given elsewhere. So that's another "coincidence" where Jesus' close relatives (cousins) just happened to match the same names and chronology as the so-called brothers. More likely they are the same set! In addition, no one in the early church believed these brothers were biological brothers. It'd be astonishing for them to lose such information when they greatly revered Jesus close relatives who all became believers and church leaders after the resurrection. So, given all these, it's more likely that between the two meanings of the words used for "brothers and sisters", the meaning intended was that of "close relatives." So this is not a question of who follows scripture or not: both of those meanings are well within scripture and our meaning is contextually supported by all the others facts depicted in scripture about Jesus' circumstances and life.
@user-jn8nn6bf6v Wrong , the issue is not the Greek , the issue is people like you lying about Gods word , to adopt or adapt your context that it simply meant brotherhood or sisterhood is nonsense, the passage makes perfect sense as his biological siblings, it names them these were not generic people . Read it again and tell me in all good conscience it makes any sense to say they were referring to these people as brotherhood/sisterhood while same time excluding themselves? It specifically says carpenters son , and his mother Mary, it then moves on (with the sane theme , naming his brothers as was jewish custom. I wonder how you people sleep at night lying so much about Gods words just to keep your own traditions. it's sickening. Mat 13:55-56 “Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
@@joelacona6057 I am not lying. It's not my fault you think the Bible was written in 21st century American English. The word there is adelphoi, a Greek word meaning brothers and close relatives. It is used to describe Abraham and Lot as brothers, for example. And as to your listed verse, I already answered: Those names listed there, the first two align with the names given for Jesus' cousins James, Jose's, sons of Mary's sister called Mary wife of Clopas, as listed in Matthew 27:56. ("Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.") And as is typical with Al the anti-Matian internet warriors, you ignored all the other scriptural points I made, including Jesus himself and his beloved disciple John both treating Mary at Jesus' death like a true widow who was understood as someone left without a close male relative to take charge of her care. Indeed, these so-called brothers would also be treating Mary this way by allowing her to move in with John. You can cling to your beliefs but they are no more legitimate than mine or better than that of all Christians for 1,500 years, including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, ie before some Protestants 500 years ago decided, even against their so-called Reformers, that they understood the Bible better than everyone else.
@cartert3792 "It's not an error according to the Universal Church, which all held the same belief as he said in this video, guided and reminded of the truth by the Holy Spirit. If they all share that same belief and affirm that doctrine then it is essentially blasphemous to the Holy Spirit to claim that doctrine is wrong. This is the point Sam is making."
Matthew 1:24-25 New International Version 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 King James Version 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 New American Standard Bible 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 [a]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. I have used these three Bible versions, so that there is no translational misunderstanding, to clarify that Mary was 'known' by Joseph (devirginized) after the birth of Jesus per scripture.
So you have Virgin Mary (until Jesus born) have sex rightfully and ss she is biblically supposed to, with Joseph and giving birth to other children. But as "the Church" has the power to bind and lose on earth andvin heaven, so they could declare.her an eternal virgin many centuries after the fact got it. And one more question: I have not drunken any beer until I was 17 or 18 years old. What are the odds you would claim that I never drank a beer in my life???
Sam, you changed your position because you’re simply on a Catholic wave… but the “Perpetual Virginity” is based on an APOCRYPHAL account that talks about a cadre of Temple Virgins that Mary was part of. There was absolutely no such Temple group. Second, the context of the Bible clearly accepts the fact that Mary had other children. In fact, Mary was so human that she even doubted the mission of Jesus Christ, even thinking that he was besides himself. You’re being distracted with garbage doctrines. Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?
Apostol Paul rebuick Peter the stone not the Rock not the head not the fundament of the church he rebuick him that was more than contradict him was apostol Paul wrong because according to you sam Peter is the Rock was Paul wrong? And Peter the "Rock " right or wrong the Rock can't be wrong sam but Peter your Rock was wrong according to apostol Paul sam so my question to you who was right because if jesus put apostol Peter on top of the church then apostol Paul was wrong for rebuick him in front of the other apostols when apostol Paul confronted him
1 Timothy 2:5 King James Version 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; - I guess we are expected to believe Jesus sublet mediation to Mary sometime after this canonized scripture was written- making it 'temporarily true'- unlocking pandoras box of the whole of scripture can be 'temporarily true'. Romans 3:23 King James Version 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; - of course, the 'Mary was sinless clause' nullifies this as being absolute truth so that we can maintain tradition. Notice all is women and men inclusive from the time of Adam to the return of Jesus. If Mary was sinless, then we can be sinless without the need for Jesus- making the cross pointless. - Mary ascended is also a tradition I think, oh, let's not forget Lilith! Slight expansion of the timeline we can include all the Gnostic gospels. Quicksand anybody? What if, forgive my ignorance, tradition was in error. Joseph 'knew' (in the Biblical sense- pardon the pun) Mary after the birth of Jesus (as scripture says). Of course, unless 'tradition' says Joseph got 'amnesia' and later recovered (joke). And what if Jesus' sisters and brothers were (I know it's crazy) His brothers and sisters- not half brothers and sisters? Then various other scripture would come into alignment- like Jesus, on the cross, giving Mary to be taken care of by the Apostle John (the responsibility of the first born- which was Jesus)- which otherwise would have been the responsibility of James the brother of Jesus (who would have been older by the eternal virgin perspective; whereas Jesus would have not have had the responsibility nor right to make that call). There are so many glitches introduced by this point of view and no benefits. I guess that's why Jesus warned us against traditions of men ahead of time.
I like Sam, but I don’t believe everything he believes and teaching. Sam is a very good historian of the Bible. God has blessed him with wisdom, but he doesn’t seem to have the Holy Spirit that’s guiding him. He tends to rely on facts more than praying to God for the truth. I think if he pray to God more for answers, God would reveal to him the truth.
Communion was meant to be a celebration meal in thanksgiving for the atonement Jesus Christ did for us by dying on the cross. Believing in Jesus Christ is the ingesting of his teachings spiritually. He equated himself figuratively with food the Jews could understand. Manna is OT. They knew the meaning of what it did back then. So He related it to himself. He is the Bread of Life. What was new to the apostles is that the passover meal they ate was related to his dying on the cross instead of the lamb they sacrifice. He showed them He is the Saviour, the Lamb of God. Believing in Jesus Christ is eating his words. Jesus Christ said believe in Him you will be saved. The RCC teaches the means to get saved is by ingesting Jesus Christ physically instead. You have to literally eat him physically to inherit eternal life. So the priest has to physically transubstantiate it into Jesus Christ and the people consume it. Bishops became priests. This is actually a Roman mithraic practice. Egypt practiced it too. The passover lamb is another means. Pagans easily converted when they were told they didn't have to change their religious belief in Rome. They consumed God to obtain eternal life by eating his divine body physically. Is this the false worship Jesus Christ tried to replace which was practiced as a form of pagan worship? So He equated it to himself like he did with water, wine and mannah, all equated to Jesus Christ, so they would understand what He was saying back then. These are different interpretations of what the scriptures teach.
It does not. The Bible or the church never taught that Joseph was a virgin. An object that has no life cannot have eternal life. Just curious, why do you call him St.?
Sam, WAS JEROME ABSOLUTELY INERRANT in every one of his beliefs; just like Scripture?? The Vicar(s) of Christ is infalliable...? The vicar of the 'universal' church...? Pope Francis must be right about the equality of all religions in leading to God. Sam must agree with Pope Francis - surely, truly a little anti-Christos... just a little...
Why does it matter? Jesus is the only one we should be concerned with. Mary is not Jesus. Upon giving birth to Jesus her job was done. Jesus himself pointed out to his disciples through his own words that all believers are his mothers and brothers and sisters, meaning that while we should honor our parents, they are not above any other parents, especially not the believers, and that includes Mary, because there is no difference in Gods eyes. So perpetual virgin, or not, it’s irrelevant and taking attention away from what matters, Christ our Lord.
@ He spends a good amount of time in the video explaining how Jesus gave the church authority to teach us and the church will always be guided by Christ. You should watch the video. Mostly the books of Matthew and Timothy
@@Garyajable context is very important and scripture can be difficult to understand, which is the reason why Jesus made the church the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The church is our teacher.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Here Bible said that she gave birth for FIRST born - Jesus First born means - it must be more and after that we can read Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Here we have, Jesus had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters ( because sisters called not by name, but by plural word) Please do not add to the Scriptures
You are misunderstanding the Scriptures Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary UPTO the Birth of Christ. THEREFORE, Isaiah 7:14 is prophecy fulfilled. This is the scope of that verse. Brothers in SEMITIC usage had a broad meaning: cousin, uncle, kinsman. SO not necessarily blood brother only as you wishfully think it is. PLEASE DONT ADD TO SCRIPTURE
I also love listening to sam Shamoun and his apologetic work but would have to disagree with Him on this. it is true that the Catholic church and belief has shaped Christianity for many years even after the reformation. however, shamouns arguments are based on the precipice that the Catholic church was the only church from the apostolic error which is historically and Biblically false. even before the reformation, there were other denominations which were never catholic and claimed to be older than the catholic church. catholic scholars like cardinal hosius even wrote that this denominations were never part of the reformation itself. this were like the one who later came to be known as anabaptists and others. If this beliefs existed alongside the catholics even amidst violent persecutions, they would atleast have subscribed to this argument that "Mary mother of God" remained a virgin. By using mathew 18, Sams argument is that the perpetuity is as a result of Church declaring it to be so and not that Mary realy remained a virgin.
And who are you to say the catholic church is the truth church again Sam Peter is not the Rock he is the stone jesus called him stone notrock jesus is the Rock
@@martinarzaga5681 That's not a good answer to my question. I'm asking you *where in the Bible* did Jesus call Peter "stone?" Thanks in advance for specificity.
The Muslims believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is Holy as well but Christianity believes that Jesus alone is the Holy One of Israel. The Blessed Virgin Mary tells us in her prayer that Jesus is her savior Luke 1:46-48 . My soul magnifies the Lord and and my spirit rejoices in God my savior. Who is Mary’s savior. ? ❤
@@everythingaboutmusic6209 Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews. 1:25 was written to demonstrate only that Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. STOP reading into and adding to scripture!
Matthew 1:25 [25]and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. What does" did not know her till she had brought forth her first born mean"?
@@zeefranx4509 Transliteration kai ouk eginōsken autēn heōs hou eteken huion ekalesen to onoma autou Iēsoun Literal English translation "And not He was aware her until of whom she had brought forth son He called the [the] name of Him” Jesus
What about 12000 of the tribe of Judah that will be the part of the 144000 first fruit ??? Where they come from ha ??? Mary and Joseph had children and it is written !! The lineage from Set to Jesus Christ ( his brothers and sisters ) you think really that God didn t expend the lineage until today ?? 12000 TRIBE OF JUDAHHHH
So, you think that God told Joseph and Mary that they were not allowed to fulfill the marital due? Absolutely not. At first Joseph wasn't going to marry Mary because he found out she was pregnant. But the angel told him it was of the Holy Spirit and to not be afraid to take Mary his wife. Now think about it-- if God had told him that he could never have intercourse with his wife, that might have made Joseph rethink things again! The error is reprehensible. The false doctrine makes Mary out to be a sinner who denied her husband the marital due. The marriage bed is undefiled. But some believe they are holier than God and cannot agree with His ways.
"if God had told him that he could never have intercourse with his wife, that might have made Joseph rethink things again!" That's absurd. Joseph was a holy man and you expect him to say: Sorry I won't take care of my God who is going to save me because I won't be able to consumate marriage with His mother? Mary is the untouchable Arc of the Covenant.
It's quite scary to think scriptures like Matthew 1:25 are unclear. If we can't even understand that, how do we know we're right about the faith as a whole.
@ That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. Because similar wording is used in Matthew 28:20 (and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.) Does that mean Jesus will leave the apostoles after the end of the age?
This is pure dogma, (and that doesn't necessarily means its bad) but here Sam is just trying to play with Scriptures (as any Apologist does, thats what they do) in order to reach a conclusion he already agreed in his mind. We all do this, accept certain "truths" and then find a way to support them using the Biblie, this isnvery normal in any Christian believer, changing beliefs and then rearrange scriptures in order to support them. This is not something inherently bad, please don't misunderstand me. Personally I dont believe tha Mary kept her "virginity" all her life, because the data we found in the Bible, doesn't support that claim, BUT I dont have any problem thinking she might indeed was a virgin throughout all her life. But I know that this belief is not well supported by Scripture and it finds its strength mainly in ancient traditions. Sam is a GREAT apologist, and as one, he'll find a way to support any new beliefs he might have in the future.
Christianity is not based on what you think but on what the Church teaches because the Church was established by Christ and given authority to teach. The role of the individual believer is to accept the Faith. Claiming to have another revelation which contradicts the Church is what heretics do, and all such claims must be false or else Christianity is false. You guys need to deal with that head on.
@ No, it's not an opinion. It's a fact that Christianity is not based on what you think but on the teaching of the Church. How can anyone say otherwise without contradiction?
I pray for brother Sam as he thinks he can explain everything but he needs to humble himself to the Holy Spirit don’t always think he is above all others brother in Christ Jesus I don’t agree with him in all his teachings but I love that he is seeking God to give Him Glory as we all are I was a Catholic at one time I’ve learned that the church is Gods children and we all read the word of God to live as His children giving Him all the Glory for we are His through Christ Jesus our Lord so I still say thank you to brother Sam may our Lord Jesus bless you and your family!
@POPEBULLSHITTHEFIRST And non-religious with another spirit put expletives like BULLSH*T in their username? That would repel anyone more than being religious. 🙃 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart 🤍 be ACCEPTABLE IN THY SIGHT O LORD God my Redeemer. For every IDLE WORD that a man speaketh, he shall give account of it in the Day of Judgement. Will that be your username in heaven? 🤔
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who take recourse to thee
Ignorance ‼️
Idolatry.. mary worshippers
that means all her ancestors never sinned. what happened to your idea about 'original sin'? what you say clearly go against what the bible says,
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Surely there is not a man on earth who does good and never sins.
any verse on that?no? so where did it come from?
@@arnelnaca702 That's not a proper understanding of original sin. Original sin is about fallen human nature, not inherited guilt. Christ chose Mary as his mother and changed her nature at conception in anticipation of his incarnation. He is the new Adam and she is the new Eve.
Love the clarity of your explanations! God bless you always!!
I am sure that no one will be lost for accepting the perpetual virginity or for denying it.
I do have to note that the doctrine seems close to Gnostic suspicion of the material world and sexual intercourse.
Sexual intercourse within marriage does not impute sin at all according to scripture.
In your opinion how many truths and sacraments can be ignored before they are _lost?_
I don't believe the Church teaches that sex within marriage is a sin.
@@dave_ecclectic It is not a matter that can be numbered.
There are many truths and facts in scripture and the history of the Lord and the Church.
Only a few of them are critical to salvation, such as Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He came in the flesh, is God , that the works He did were of the Holy Spirit and that God is Love.
I never said that the RC church teaches that sex within marriage is a sin.
I said that the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine seems to be held to in order to affirm Mary's Holiness and the logic seems to be that if she has sex at all she would be in sin.
@@thenowchurch6419 You began numbering it, now you say it can't be numbered?
The logic only seems to be on your view that Mary remained celibate.
Why is this a logical view? and what does logic have to do with actual events?
@@dave_ecclectic What do you mean I began numbering it?
I did no such thing.
Please stop mixing me up with someone else or making stuff up.
My view that Mary remained celibate? I never said that was my view.
My view is that she probable did not remain celibate after birthing Jesus.
The logic I applied was that it seems that the RC Church considers sex to be sinful when it comes to Mary, even if she had sex with her lawful husband, because it insists on her perpetual virginity when scripture does not explicitly say so.
That is pretty simple my friend.
@@thenowchurch6419
_I am sure that no one will be lost for accepting the perpetual virginity or for denying it._
_Only a few of them are critical to salvation, such as..._
_What do you mean I began numbering it? I did no such thing._
_I never said that the RC church teaches that sex within marriage is a sin._
_Sexual intercourse within marriage does not impute sin at all according to scripture._ This implies the Church does.
_The logic I applied was that it seems that the RC Church considers sex to be sinful when ..._ This *says* the Church does
My mistake, sorry.
I didn't realize Scripture was required to Explicitly state anything much less that it always does.
You know - like how the Bible does not Explicitly state to Eat the flesh of our Lord and all that.
Or that is has to be logical, like sacrificing your Son to pay for our sins.
If you wish to believe the Church teaches that Mary needed to remain a virgin because of sin so be it.
Myself I don't see the connection between her remaining a virgin, and it must be _immaculately_ recorded in the Bible that she was, because it must be logical.
Little pun there.
I believe the Scriptures especially the Gospels should be the final guide of all doctrines but other external sources are welcomed as long as they don't contradict the Gospels
@@gwin8463 I'm with you on that thought.
@@gwin8463 What's your thought on the Gospel of Thomas? It appears to be sayings of Jesus with out narration or theme from the apostles perspective of Him. I wonder where that fits in.
What do the Gospels mean? Show two individuals who agree 100%. Therefore, by themselves they are worthless.
@HAL9000-su1mz
You are lost. Gospels are different eye-witness accounts. Why would we have 4 books if they were exactly the same?? Think!!
@ At least "I" know I am lost. You just infallibly told me.
The belief that Jesus is fully God and fully man didn't develop in isolation-it grew alongside the Church's understanding of Mary's unique role in salvation.
For me, Mary's perpetual virginity and her title as Theotokos (Mother of God) are central because they protect the truth of Jesus's divine and human natures. If Mary carried God in the flesh, then she was chosen for something completely unique and holy. That's why her Immaculate Conception makes so much sense-
God preserved her from sin so she could fully say "yes" to His plan. Her perpetual virginity underscores that Jesus's birth was miraculous, not ordinary, pointing directly to His divinity. As the Church deepened its understanding of who Jesus is, it naturally gained a clearer understanding of Mary, because her role is inseparable from His Incarnation. Their natures
-His as fully divine and fully human, and hers as sinless and ever-virgin-developed together in the Church's reflection. These beliefs don't elevate Mary above Jesus; they glorify Him by revealing the depth of God's plan. To dismiss Mary's role is to miss the bigger picture of what God was doing through her and for us. She's not the center of the story-Jesus is-but her role is essential to understanding Him.
Almost nothing you said is found in the Bible.
Mary sinless????? Are you insane?
She was a mere vessel, we don't worship her or the apostles, only God!
@ please tell we what denomination you are part of so I can understand theologically what you believe.
@@MichaelHowardMonroe
I don't 'belong' to any 'congregation'. I worship the God that was revealed to me through Scripture. Yes, I attend Church but I'm non-denominational.
@ ok so you have no affiliation with Lutherans, Calvinist, Baptist etc. Helps me to know who I’m talking with so thank you.
@ where did you go? Are you studying about the nature of God to make sure you have a correct understanding?
Not all religions lead to God like the pope said. Pope doesn't override God. Was that forgotten? It's written on the RCC website.
What would be the reason to use "firstborn" son in regards to Jesus as opposed to saying she brought forth "a" son? (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)
@@meandepiphany firstborn is a legal term indicating special privilege or rank. This term was important for OT law requirements. It’s not an indication that Jesus was the first of multiple children.
If only one son is born, he is still "firstborn". Going even deeper, Christ is the firstborn Son of God, and being "born again" is being born into the family of God. Christ becomes our brother, and is the "firstborn" of all salvation.
@@sentjojo “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."
Matthew 12:50
@sentjojo Where can I find the source for your definition? Multiple dictionaries and etymology shows that it means the eldest in the line of childbirth.
@ If you don’t feel comfortable clicking on the link, you can go to the new advent website and search first born mosaic law. This is the Catholic explanation
It has always been my question, if mother Mary had other Children why would Jesus hand her over to John and not to one of her children?
Joseph didnt kniw mary until after christ was born. Doesnt that end the argument ?
No, it relates to Mathew writing the gospel to Jewish
community mainly and underscoring that Joseph did not participate in conception to fulfill the prophecy of a virgin with child. It was unheard of as all families bear children with a hope for their offspring to become the Messiah. You pray over the passage and you will see to it the meaning you quote.
@bgdns42 But Jesus also had sisters......and thr word used for sister......means sister and nothing else. So that is problematic
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:20-21, 24-25) To be sure, this passage is one of the most frequently cited proofs against the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, if we interpret it in its first-century Jewish context, it actually provides important corroboration for the evidence in Luke’s Gospel that Joseph and Mary do not engage in ordinary marital relations. To begin with, although at first glance the statement that Joseph did not “know” Mary “until (Greek heōs) she bore a son” (Matthew 1:25) may seem to imply that Joseph did have relations with Mary after the birth, this is actually not the case. The Greek word “until” (heōs) simply describes a certain period of time, and does not imply anything about what happens afterward. Consider, for example, the following examples from Matthew’s Gospel, in which the word “until” (Greek heōs) clearly does not imply a change afterward: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until (Greek heōs) I put your enemies under your feet.’ ” (Matthew 22:44) Jesus came and said to them…“Lo, I am with you always, until (Greek heōs) the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20) Perhaps the most striking example of all comes from the account in the Greek Old Testament of what happened to King David and his wife Michal after she despised him for dancing: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (Greek heōs) the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:23 LXX)18
@@outlawandoutdoorstv9901 in the bible as far as husband and wife is concerned, the phrase 'do not know' means not have sex.
@@bairfreedom why would Mary ask an angel how is that going to happen that I will be with a child while being betrothed to Joseph at the moment of annunciation? Or you think she was stupid not knowing how children were being conceived? At this, there are also beliefs that Joseph was widowed and had children from previous marriage too, as it stands in later 400s proto-gospels. Lots of possibilities other than real sisters and brothers. Same you find in a gospel that one of the apostles was presumably a brother of the Lord, that is Jude. Was Mary then his mother? So, lots of possibilities to interpret brothers and sisters if not being locked in one's own realm. But Mary's questioning of the angel is the only scriptural point to be explained if you are right. And also, it doesn't correlate with other Protestant belief that Jesus was giving Mary to John as a mother to look after only and not in a spiritual sense, if there were other brothers and sisters. Which also needs clarification in this respect...
I am a Protestant and I affirm this, also, I am writing a pdf on the scriptural case for it.
Please, tell us here when you make it available.
Interesting my brother. Will you use any Old Testament scriptures or just the New Testament.
If you are going to believe the false gospel you might vas well be a Catholic
No you're not.
@@jperello001 I have one big argument from the NT
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which *was made of the seed of David according to the flesh*
{Romans 1:3}
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son *in the likeness of sinful flesh* and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
{Romans 8:3}
Tradition was changed. Added to. 400 ad is not the start of tradition but that is their beginning.
To the people in the comments still arguing against Sam: Did you even listen to what he said? If you want to refute him, give him a Church Father that opposes the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Have a nice day. May the All and Most Holy Trinity guide you to the truth and fullness of the faith.
Why? He set up several fallacies. First he said his argument was biblical. It wasn't. He ran through Bible verses not one of which speak to his final claim. Worse, in each verse he implied meaning to the text that was actually not there. Then once his side show was complete he turned to claiming others ave no answers. All fallacious. Finally, he turned to "the traditions of men" not the apostles as expected. He would be thrown out of a first semester exegesis class. Sadly, at this point I don't know if he knows that or even cares.
“If you want to…”-it is optional. He prefaced saying something to the sort of “This probably won’t convince people, but it worked for me.” and yet you still complain. Take it for what it is.
@@TitusThundr "First he said his argument was biblical. It wasn't."
It was. He showed, from the Bible, that you have to follow the Church because Christ gave authority to the Church.
@@MillionthUsername He demonstrated no such thing. He also and cannot demonstrate that "Rome" is "the church." His entire argument was a puerile fallacy meant to deceive.
@@MillionthUsername Christ gave no authority to a Catholic institution. Also that same false institution claims Christ actually gave the authority to Peter. And Peter is neither a pope or Catholic. He has nothing to do with a Catholic institution. You both have no argument exegetically nor historically.
let us have scripture as our source of doctrine. "Sanctify them with thy truth, thy Word is truth"
First of all, as a Protestant I do not denigrate the BLESSED MOTHER MARY any more than I would denigrate your blessed mother or my blessed mother. Each one was blessed by God in their own way. It is true that Mary had the privilege of carrying Jesus in her womb and such, but in Jesus' own words He would say to you and to me "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” As He stretches out His hand toward all His disciples, who we are, He says, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt. 12:46-50 says that Jesus had brothers. So why do you insist that Mary was a perpetual virgin? That doesn't make sense. And why is that important that she remain a Perpetual Virgin? Your doctrine is off here, brother. By the way, the context of Matthew 18 is not that the Church is the final authority in deciding these "traditions." Jesus is teaching about reconciliation and the importance of community, and these verses illustrate the power of unity and the assurance that God is attentive to the prayers of those who come together in faith.
She had no other child, this is just what it is
and you will take saint Joseph as David who received and kept the ark of the covenant.
Just as David would not have used the ark of the old covenant for his personal use.
Saint Joseph couldn't have gone near the Blessed virgin Mary in that way.
Any sane man wouldn't even dare it not to talk of a man like saint Joseph.
The trick is first understand how Holy God is and how whatever He touches becomes sacred ground. He was the blessed virgin Mary's for 9 good months.
You're uneducated
Because they were his brothers. That does not mean that they were the children of Mary. They were either the children of Joseph from his other wife and/or children of Mary's sisters. For the second that is actually stated explicitly in the Scriptures if you are reading carefully. All of them would constitute brothers and sisters of Jesus. You take your cultural norms of who is considered as a brother/sister, and apply it to other cultures. In many parts of the world, like where I live, we today refer to our cousins as brothers/sisters and don't even have a word for cousin.
Now, why to insist on her perpetual virginity? Its simple. Sam explains it in this video. Since the earliest recorded sources, those whom the Scriptures tell us were guided by the God Holly Spirit, where ever they were, they all believed this is true. So, rejecting it means rejecting the faith and teachings preserved by God Himself and stepping away from the unity of the Church. That should be more then enough of a reason. This is not a simple intellectual question, but an existential one.
They were His cousins or kinsfolk. Those kids are the children of Mary of Clopas, the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Remember, Mary was the most common female name at the time. There are 6 Marys we are introduced to in the Gospels.
@ZiggyFingers
It doesn't make sense to you because you don't rightly understand that part of the scriptures yet. It is important that she remained a perpetual virgin to fulfill the scriptures, see Ezekiel 44:2. Based on your interpretation of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 18, was the catholic church right in excommunicating the reformers or not?
Question:
How does one get saved? How does one know they are saved?
Excellent explanation
A small correction. Except for the reason of split, which was the question of natures and wills of Christ, which seems to be more terminological then theological issue, there are no differences between Eastern Orthodox (EO) and Oriental Orthodox (OO). Although that split took place in the 5th century, and there was virtually no communication between the two until the 20th century, EO and OO hold the same traditions and beliefs. You find differences and embracing things others don't accept only in Roman Catholicism and in extension Protestantism.
Matthew chapter 1 verse 25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." The pivital word is "till" which presumes that he knew her "after" she gave birth ti Jesus.
The Greek word used for until or till does not always mean a reversal in the old and New Testament. Look up examples.
@@coastalrecon5523Haha I like how he Mentioned all writings of Men besides the Word of God mentions Mary is a Perpetual Virgin And Sinless 😂, maybe God just forgot to give her God like characteristics 😅
The word "knew" doesn't always mean sex in the bible.
In John 2:25, John tells us Jesus "knew all men"
“Until ” doesn’t imply that after she gave birth to Jesus that she had normal sexual relations with Joseph. 1 Corinthians 15:25 says that Christ “must reign until he he has put enemies under his feet.” But we know Christ will never cease to reign.
The early church believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. Both Luther and Calvin believed she was a perpetual virgin.
The Bible also doesn’t say Mary gave birth to any other children besides Jesus.
@RiveraDelta_Homestead Notice how you Didn't give a Single verse stating Mary was Sinless or a Perpetual Virgin but mentions the word of early catholic Heretics NOT from the Divine Revelation that Mary was Sinless and a perpetual Virgin 🤣. GET AWAY FROM THAT CULT AND READ YOUR BIBLE.
@@RiveraDelta_Homestead Are you implying he didn't speak with his wife until after she bore Jesus?
This is the only subject Sam refuses to believe in the scriptures. Pray for him.
Amen sam shamoun, got it 🎉🎉
How was Wycliffe anathema? Why?
Mary would be sinless during her pregnancy Of what you have explained during that time, however she was human and was a sinner like you and me. I love Mary, she is a wonderful person, however she was a sinner like you and me. Mary also needed a Saviour like you and me. If Mary was sinless she would not need a saviour. See Luke 1:46-47
He is wrong. Christ did not make it the CATHOLIC CHURCH. and the church s the body of believers. These men are not right.
@@TriciaPerry-mz7tc So why did Christ establish the Church upon Peter? Why did Jesus give keys to heaven to Peter referencing Isaiah 22:22 if he was just as important as everyone else? Why did He say that Peter was the rock upon which the Church would be built? Paul even commands to follow spoken word of the apostoles in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the end of John's gospel says that Jesus did many other things that are not written (John 21:25). If we then look at James 5:14 the presbyters (elders) of the Church which fulfill a special role by whose action the Lord forgives sins, why would the apostoles establish this hierarchy (apostoles, presbyters, deacons) if Jesus didn't command it? And lastly Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church so the Church can't preach heresy.
@@jankowal260Christ is the Rock the Church is built on. Peter means a stone, but Christ is the Rock. All believers are built together as living stones. Jesus also called Peter Satan. 👹
Why aren't you calling him that, seeing as Jesus did? 🤔🙃
@@jankowal260 If The Jesus did not complete the Scriptures through John in Revelation, why did He Condemn anyone adding and Removing from His Word if it was not Complete😂?
@ Apart form the verse speaking about the Book of Revelation specyficaly the Scripture is completed. But tradition of the Church is also used as infallible source of teaching. Just as the apostoles tought more the Church teaches interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Does only the Roman Catholic church hold the keys to salvation? Do they? They could not answer how one can know if they are saved. They DID NOT HAVE THE ANSWER to my simple question. No one did. I found out outside of the church.
now why should i care? thats what im puzzled about. and what does it matter? if she had lawful holy relations with her husband how does that make her less of a saint
The reason to care is that the Marian dogmas reflect and protect the truth of the Incarnation, that Jesus is one eternal person who is both true God and true man. He is not a human person elevated to near-diety; not two persons, one God and one man, sort of occupying the same space; not God appearing as an illusion of man.
The title Theotokos/God Bearer/Mother of God declares unambiguously that Jesus is God against the Nestorian heresy. The child in Mary's womb was 100% God from the moment of conception.
The perpetual virginity of Mary reinforces this in that Mary being a virgin before during and after Jesus' birth demonstrates that His conception and birth were miraculous, and could be proven by a physical examination, even after birth.
The perpetual virginity also demonstrates Christ's divinity and holiness. Her womb became holy ground, a tabernacle, that contained God Himself. Making her the Ark of the New Covenant. Her body was and still is a holy vessel reserved exclusively for God's use.
This a big subject and would take a lot of time to cover adequately, and could be better done by someone else, but there are a couple of examples.
God Bless.
That is what I am saying.
It is Gnostics who think that all sexual relations are sinful.
@@youngbloodk #1----Matt 1:25 NABRE
He had no relations with her until she bore a son,[f] and he named him Jesus.
-#2------Amplified Bible
but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation).
#3--------Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.
-#4------Christian Standard Bible
but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son.[a] And he named him Jesus.
#5------Common English Bible
But he didn’t have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. Joseph called him Jesus.
-#6-----Complete Jewish Bible
but he did not have sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Yeshua.
#7-------Contemporary English Version
But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.
-#8---------Disciples’ Literal New Testament
And he was not knowing[a] her until which time she gave-birth to a Son. And he called His name Jesus
Footnotes
Matthew 1:25 That is, in a sexual sense.
#9------Easy-to-Read Version
But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And he named him Jesus.
#10-----EasyEnglish Bible
Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after the baby boy was born. He said that the boy's name should be Jesus.
-#11-----Evangelical Heritage Version
25 but he was not intimate with her until she gave birth to her firstborn son.[a] And he named him Jesus.
#12----Expanded Bible
but he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And ·Joseph [L he] named him Jesus.
#13-----GOD’S WORD Translation
He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.
-#14---Good News Translation
But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.
-#15----Holman Christian Standard Bible
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son.[a] And he named Him Jesus.
#16----International Children’s Bible
But he did not have intimate relations with her until she gave birth to the son. And Joseph named the son Jesus.
#17-----International Standard Version
He did not have marital relations with[ her until she had given birth to a son;[b] and he named him Jesus.
#18-----J.B. Phillips New Testament
24-25 When Joseph woke up he did what the angel had told him. He married Mary, but had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. Then he gave him the name Jesus.
#19-----Legacy Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
#20-------Lexham English Bible
and did not have sexual relations with[a] her until she gave birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
#20------Living Bible
but she remained a virgin until her Son was born; and Joseph named him “Jesus.”
-#21---The Message
Then Joseph woke up. He did exactly what God’s angel commanded in the dream: He married Mary. But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus.
-#22-----Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament
but (kai) he had no (ou) marital (ginōskō) relations with her (autos) until (heōs hos) she
had given (tiktō) birth to a son (hyios) and he (kai) called (kaleō-ho) him (autos) Jesus (Iēsous)
#23----Names of God Bible
He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Yeshua
-#24----.New American Bible (Revised Edition)
He had no relations with her until she bore a son,[a] and he named him Jesus.
#25-----New American Standard Bible
[a]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.
#26----New American Standard Bible 1995
[a]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
-#27----New Catholic Bible
but he engaged in no marital relations[a] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.
-#27---New Century Version
but he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to the son. And Joseph named him Jesus.
-#28---New English Translation
but did not have marital relations[a] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.
Footnotes
Matthew 1:25 tn Or “did not have sexual relations”; Grk “was not knowing her.” The verb “know” (in both Hebrew and Greek) is a frequent biblical euphemism for sexual relations. However, a translation like “did not have sexual relations with her” was considered too graphic in light of the popularity and wide use of Matthew’s infancy narrative. Thus the somewhat less direct but still clear “did not have marital relations” was preferred.
#29-----New International Reader's Version
But he did not sleep with her until she gave birth to a son. And Joseph gave him the name Jesus.
-#30----New International Version
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
-#30----New International Version - UK
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
#31----New Life Version
But he did not have her, as a husband has a wife, until she gave birth to a Son. Joseph gave Him the name Jesus.
-#32---New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
#33----New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised
25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus.
#34-----New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus.
-#35---New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus.
-#36---New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus.
-#37---New Testament for Everyone
but he didn’t have sexual relations with her until after the birth of her son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
-#38---Tree of Life Version
But he did not know her intimately until she had given birth to a Son. And he called His name Yeshua.
-#39---The Voice
(though he did not consummate their marriage until after her son was born). And when the baby was born, Joseph named Him Jesus, Savior.
#40----World English Bible
and didn’t know her sexually until she had given birth to her firstborn son. He named him Jesus.
#41----Worldwide English (New Testament)
But he did not make love with her until her first son had been born. He named him Jesus.
--- All the bibles that SAY they had SEX!! EVEN over 3 catholic bibles!!!!
@@youngbloodklove it!!!
Matthew 1:25
2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child until the day of her death; just means she’d never had children throughout her entire life. It doesn’t say anything of what she did after the day of her death. So this passage in Matthew 1:25, I would ask a Protestant who brings this up, what is Matthew’s point? What is he trying to get across? Is Matthew trying to tell the reader, “My point is that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born.” That’s not his concern. That’s not Matthew’s main point in Matthew Chapter One. His main point is that Jesus does not have an earthly father. Jesus’ Father is God the Father. We know that because Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations before Jesus was born. That is the main point he’s trying to get across. He’s not saying anything about what happened after Jesus was born. His main point is about the span of events that took place before Jesus was born.
In fact, John Calvin, the Protestant reformer John Calvin, said of Matthew 1:25 and the perpetual virginity of Mary, “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.” In fact, belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was something most of the Reformers believed in: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli. So Mary’s virginity was something that was believed in even well past the Protestant Reformation.
Matthew 1:25 doesn't teach that Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Christ. Stop basing your theology on translations.
For you brothers and sisters who doesn't believe, did God made a mistake of choosing Mary to bear His child Jesus Christ who is holy and sinless?
Doesn't believe what? In dogmas of some church that made them up 8, 15 or even 18 centuries after the fact???
We believe in the sinlessness of Jesus and my Bible tells me there was NO OTHER man or woman totally without sin OTHER than Jesus.
Mary had sins, like everyone else. She was favoured and its a wonderful woman, but she was a normal human.
"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Matthew 1.
Pretty obvious that according to the bible Mary and Joseph consummated the marriage.
Nowhere does it say Joseph consummated his marriage.
King David refused michal sex until she died. Does that mean they did it after? Obviously not. until in Greek is perfect present tense
@johnfrancis4401 dude, how could you possibly say that? Read the scripture again. He did not consummate their marriage UNTIL Jesus was born. This whole perpetual virginity of Mary belief is unbiblical and ludicrous. It stuns me how genuine Christians can get so blinded by Catholic nonsense like this. Blindness is actually the right word, as arguing sense with them doesn't seem to work, it takes a supernatural work of God to open their eyes.
@ You just don’t understand the phraseology. All it means is that he did not consummate the marriage before Jesus was born. It doesn’t necessarily mean it was consummated after. You are making assumptions. Besides there have been apparitions of Our Lady at Lourdes, at Fatima where over 70,000 people saw the sun spinning and dancing, at Guadeloupe, in Medjugorje where Our Lady introduces herself as the EVER VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD. Of course 70,000 people were hallucinating, the cactus fibres of Guadeloupe is a fake painting, Lourdes is a hoax despite the hundreds of miracles. Sola Scriptura is not everything The Mother of God doesn’t lie.
Forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but why does whether or not Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ even matter?
This may help you.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (ep 101)
ruclips.net/video/Z0r_OVFHys0/видео.html
The reason to care is that the Marian dogmas reflect and protect the truth of the Incarnation, that Jesus is one eternal person who is both true God and true man. He is not a human person elevated to near-diety; not two persons, one God and one man, sort of occupying the same space; not God appearing as an illusion of man.
The title Theotokos/God Bearer/Mother of God declares unambiguously that Jesus is God against the Nestorian heresy. The child in Mary's womb was 100% God from the moment of conception.
The perpetual virginity of Mary reinforces this in that Mary being a virgin before during and after Jesus' birth demonstrates that His conception and birth were miraculous, and could be proven by a physical examination, even after birth.
The perpetual virginity also demonstrates Christ's divinity and holiness. Her womb became holy ground, a tabernacle, that contained God Himself. Making her the Ark of the New Covenant. Her body was and still is a holy vessel reserved exclusively for God's use.
This a big subject and would take a lot of time to cover adequately, and could be better done by someone else, but there are a couple of examples.
God Bless.
0 - 10:00:
Coming to the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is one error. But claiming that it is anchored, even implicitly, in Scripture is delusional. The doctrine is actually disproved explicitly in Scripture. You don't even bother addressing how Jesus had brothers and sisters: "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us? So they were offended at Him" (Mark 6:3). (See also John 7:1-5 and Matthew 13:55-56).
Furthermore, even if Mary's children were not mentioned, it would still not mean that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She did get married. You agree with that, right? A man getting married and never having sex with his wife? Now that would be a miracle. This pet doctrine accomplishes nothing. It has no point.
In Matthew 18:17-20, the church is said to have authority for matters of church discipline. In Matthew 16:18-19, the church is shown to have authority to determine who to recognize as a believer so as to build the church. That doesn't mean it has the authority to change the reality of Mary's virginal status or that the church has authority over Scripture.
10:00 - end
Why does the idea of the agreement in doctrine as a test for true doctrine
apply only in the first several hundred years before the split, instead of being disproved after it? What is so magical about the first four centuries?
11:00 (Helvitius):
With regard to Mary's perpetual virginity being argued by Jerome to school Helvitius, what exactly was Jerome's argument?: "You should agree with me because my position has the greater number of people"? Was there any other argument?
In any case, agreement in the early church is irrelevant. Agreement was only necessary among the apostles and even then only applicable with regard to their inspired writings. They did have their disagreements. After the apostles, agreement is not how true doctrine is known. There is no guarantee that the HS empowers post apostolic believers to have perfect doctrine. That's why there has always been so much disagreement.
Love you Sam but not your delusions.
It's not an error according to the Universal Church, which all held the same belief as he said in this video, guided and reminded of the truth by the Holy Spirit. If they all share that same belief and affirm that doctrine then it is essentially blasphemous to the Holy Spirit to claim that doctrine is wrong. This is the point Sam is making.
@@cartert3792
How far does the "universal church" argument go? How do you even know who the Christians were in the first few centuries? We don't even know who they are today. If the majority of so-called Christians denied the divinity of Jesus, would you do the same?
Joseph and Mary had other sons and daughters. It's right there in the Scripture. You didn't deal with that. What we imagine isn't going to change that. You cannot put what people believe, even if it is a lot of people, above the Scripture or, for that matter, above reality.
Samoun said, "No one can answer that." Absolute rubbish. I'm sure many people can just as I did. But no one has a suitable answer for me. Samoun is a very knowledgeable man. I was very surprised when I watched this video.
If agreement was only necessary among the Apostles as you claim, who was Paul addressing in 1 Corinthians 1:10 saying, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that *all of you agree,* and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment?" The Corinthian church or the Apostles?
@
@cartert3792
Why does the "unity reveals the truth" model only apply to the first four hundred years of the church? Why doesn't the current state of disunity prove the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity wrong?
The reason there seems to be unity on the issue in the early church is likely to be because the people who think it is important enough to bring up in their writing are those who believe it and teach it.
As far as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit goes, I don't see the Spirit bringing unity by working contrary to the very Scripture He inspired, which says Jesus had brothers and sisters.
@
@Mission-520
Paul was addressing the Corinthians, and you've basically proven my point, not yours. Paul was telling the Corinthians to have unity because they did not have it. You are conflating the state of affairs with what should be the state of affairs.
All believers should be unified, but they cannot be held accountable for it if the Scripture says contradictory things. That's why the apostles had to be unified in what they taught. And when you are held accountable, is it going to be for whether you agreed with bishops in the early church, who themselves ignored what Matthew and John wrote, or whether you believed what is written in Scripture?
Mathew 1:25
If anyone reads Mathew 1:25 , what will be the conclusion?
Wouldn’t it be so easy to write Joseph never met Mary?
You think the Holy Spirit would inspire to confuse people?
On top of that why talk so much about Mary , taking the attention of Jesus?
And didn’t that docrine arise in James Gospel 150ad?
Does any church accept that gospel?
Matthew 1:25 only creates confusion when read in English with certain assumptions. When read in the original Greek, the phrasing does not necessarily imply one way or another; although various church fathers would argue that it leans towards perpetual virginity.
It would be easy to write a lot of things, yet the Bible does not clearly define a lot of things. So expecting something like this to be clearly defined is not a point against the argument of perpetual virginity.
The only confusion comes from assumptions based upon the language, not the Holy Spirit. If you feel confused based on the verse, that is good reasoning to do more research and reading.
Talking about Mary in no way diminishes the attention of Jesus. She is the mother of God, and Jesus loved her dearly, so we too should love her dearly. Also, this argument can be used to say we should stop talking about all the apostles and Moses and Elijah and David and so on. Talking about Biblical figures does not diminish God's glory.
While the Protoevangelium of James is not accepted by any church as scripture due to being written after James' death, the argument for perpetual virginity is not based on it. The Church bases it off of the Bible and Church teaching. Actually, the Protoevangelium of James gives support for how many early Christians believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, since it is still a historical document, regardless of being it apocrypha.
If someone concludes something on my 1:25 is virgin útil birth
You say something not clearly defined is not an argument against the perpetual virginity!
It works the other way around, to establish a doctrine you should have a clear bible teaching! Do you desagree?
No one makes doctrines about Moses Elijah or David based on something not clear, as you do with Mary
Based on your “Mother of God arguments why don’t you read the geneoly and honor the grandpa of God? Or the great grandpa of God and so on?
Where in the Bible do you base the perpetual virginity of Mary?
And wich church teaching before that Gospel ?
Because you joined a cult that worships the queen of heaven. Next question.
Samoramis from the book of Jeremiah is not the same as the woman in revelation who was taken up and crowned and clothed with the heavens and gave birth to Jesus and his church. Next question
@dylanarmour6727 tell yourself whatever you need to get to sleep at night.
Why the hate?😂
@@paulus809 I know, right? Only 1400 years of murder, torture, theft and blasphemy and these guys still hold a grudge.
Die Protestanten waren es die die Kirchen geplündert haben, die Protestanten waren es die Hexen verbrannt haben, die Protestanten waren es die wiedertäufer ermordet haben, die Protestanten waren es die einen großen Krieg mit Christen angezettelt haben.
Even John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary...
Yes he did and called it heresy not to believe it. Zwingli as well.
@@MichaelHowardMonroeit’s all this focus on a Virgin Mary. Skip the entire Bible and focus on this MADE UP person. It’s crazy to Base their entire life on this ONE person. Sad stupid
@@MichaelHowardMonroe no he didn’t. He explicitly said that it would be mockery to God to believe in the dogma. He just didn’t believe Matthew 1:25 proved it. Even Catholic Answers concedes this. And it wasn’t just Calvin. As far back as a second century, ECFs like Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and then later St Victorinus rejected the dogma. Importantly, the New Testament does not support it.
What sensible man believes in the perpetual virginity of a married woman as if that is a righteous thing, rather than sinful? What sensible man believes that another man under the Mosaic law is going to knowingly marry a young virgin who will never give him the marital due? When Joseph found out she was pregnant, he was going to divorce her. So, this kind of nonsensical doctrine arises from individuals who believe they are holier than God, when they make marital sex out to be a sin. They in turn defile Mary and make her out to be a sinner by denying her husband the marital obligation. The doctrine is clearly not of the truth, but of the adversary.
If he did, he was in error, just like Sam. Read Matthew 1:24-25
What happens if the bishops in conjunction with Pope teach heresy or allow it? I mean I guess if theres one Bishop whos legit (Athenasius for example) then were still good but I worry these current Catholic prelates in the majority dont follow the traditional faith?
I presume you're not catholic from your comment. If you worry that the leadership of a church that Christ promised his eternal divine protection would fail, but you are not worried that the leadership of your protestant church which does not enjoy the same divine protection as the catholic church would fail, is your faith in Christ or in someone else? Who do you believe as a believer?
@Mission-520 I'm not protestant but Catholic from birth, I'm not sure you're following what I was stating? I don't doubt that Christ will protect his Church more how you respond to heretics within it? Your swinging after the bell a bit.
Just because they all agree doesn’t make it right, we have to be able to test it against scripture and scripture says she had kids that simple.
No it doesnt say she had kids, you're literally adding to scripture.
@georgediaz9869 That is not true; you should read it more carefully. At no point does scripture state that the Blessed Virgin Mary is anyone's mother but Jesus'. It also does not say she and Joseph had marital relations after Jesus' birth. The scripture calls certain people brother and sisters, never identifying a parent. It also only stipulates that Mary and Joseph did not have relations before the birth of Jesus. It says nothing about afterwards.
Also, the fact that they ALL agree about an issue in the first several hundred years of the Church might be clue that any modern re-interpretation that contradicts it is most-likely wrong.
The early Church was not a bunch of morons. They faithfully believed and passed on what they received from the Apostles and were willingly martyred for it. Look at the Faith they died for, and you will see it was not Protestant. It was thoroughly Catholic/Orthodox. No person honestly looking at the early Church writing can deny that. The best they can do is say, like the Mormons, that Jesus lied and the whole Church went to hell-in-a-hand-basket immediately after the death of the last apostle.
@@deadmoney5580 bruh there are clear scriptures where they tell Jesus your mother brothers and sisters are looking for him and he says those who do the will of my Father are my mother, brother and sisters. That’s scripture you are gonna add and say that’s not what it says Matthew 12:50
According to scripture, why would the Holy Spirit allow the WHOLE body of Christians to believe doctrines such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, the Eucharist, confession, etc. for *1500 years* until the protest?
@ wasn’t the Holy Spirit easy
Sam I watched manies videos of you and I used to admire you but now I see you as a FALSE teacher and idolatry promoter, you went back to your erroneous believe
Jesus had dual role during incarnation, one as God's son, two as Mary (and Joseph's) son. When Joseph ("a good man" who kept quiet about Mary's pregnancy to protect both Mary and the unborn Jesus) passed away his brothers (James, Judas, Joses, Simone) and unnamed sisters were looking for him to work and support the family instead of talking nonsense. (Catholic claims they were from Joseph 's previous marriage).
I was nervous there for a moment.. I thought he was gonna give solid evidence to convince me Mary was a perpetual virgin.. I respect his opinion tho..
Matthew 1:25
Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus birth. One must validate with scripture. Even the church can get it wrong just as Israel did in the old covenant and went away from God.
Jesus told a church to repent or he will remove their lamp stand.
This does not change the Word of God or who He is. It just means humans can still come up with their own unnecessary ideas.
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and may people realize erroneous teachings and repent for adding and taking away from the bible.
You just disproved bible alone. Like inbreeding it often produces idiots.
And I’m sure you don’t know the traditional view on that verse….do your research man
So you are smarter than Augustin of Hippo? Arrogance!
Show me in the bible where it says Mary ever had sex? By the concept of solar scriptura if it’s not there - you don’t believe it - the bible doesn’t ever claim Mary had sex.
Scripture declares Mary a virgin. The biblical use of "until" declares her a virgin till death.
The scripture verifies that Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Jesus. Prior to splitting apart all the Churches believe Marry was a virgin, because God would have made it known to the Churches, if she wasn’t. Okay. Was then Joseph a holy man or a man from the Levi tribe? What was Joseph purpose for marrying Mary in the first place? So the Angel told Joseph has take Mary for his wife and to sorely be a guardian to Jesus and Mary and nothing more? If so why then Joseph wasn’t more involved with Jesus life? Shouldn’t Joseph be like a disciple to Jesus or making his mission to please Jesus? And why Mary wasn’t side by side with Jesus throughout his mission? Did Mary have her own church because she was the mother of Jesus the son God at that time and that’s why she couldn’t follow Jesus? If you believe that Mary was a virgin and Joseph was a saint for what he did, then I would think we would hear and read more about Mary and Joseph in the Bible, but they were rarely mentioned. So I got to believe Mary and Joseph were chosen also because they were ordinary people.
Changing position because the church is the authority? Why did Martin Luther change his position on the “church”? If I walked into a “church” and they were preaching a false gospel would I then have the right to discern that? If the Holy Spirt is our teacher then he will guide us into all truth. I will trust that. So if Jesus defense against the devil was scripture , that will be my defense . If scripture tells me one thing and the “church” says the opposite I will say the “church” is in error . The “church” in context of scripture is a body of believers , it’s the the papacy that lays out in the Roman Catholic system either . Catholics always go back and claim this authority because of Peter. And since they claim this “authority” all judgements by the Catholic system and the grey of reason, philosophy lie in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church as the authority , not scripture alone . This man’s approach on trying to convince this other man in the perpetual virginity of Mary is just crazy. He tries to go to the church being the authority and skips all the versus in the Bible that PROVES , Mary was not a virgin until death, Joseph KNEW Mary. And Jesus infact had biological syblings
Sam, is an apostate, he has bought into the lies of Satan and Sam is twisting the word of God just like the Devil, and is leading many astray from the truth of what God's word says about Mary. He knows that Mary had children and is not a perpetual virgin.
But Paul commands to follow spoken word 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the end of John's gospel says that Jesus did many other things that are not written (John 21:25). If we then look at James 5:14 the presbyters (elders) of the Church which fulfill a special role by whoe action the Lord forgives sins, why would the apostoles establish this hierarchy (apostoles, presbyters, deacons) if Jesus didn't command it? Why did Jesus give keys to heaven to Peter referencing Isaiah 22:22 if he was just as important as everyone else? Why did He say that Peter was the rock upon which the Church would be built? And lastly Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church so the Church can't preach heresy.
@ well , I wrote a reply to you on this , but it was deleted and I didn’t violate anything, so the owner of this channel deleted my comment , probably because he doesn’t want the truth there .
@@Stephen-vk3ej RUclips deletes comments itself even if it doesn't violate anything, it happened to me several times. Try posting your comment in parts to see what gets censored.
@@jankowal260 how can you say that Peter was the first pope based on what Jesus told Peter upon this rock I will build my church . All this resembles is his faith. Look what Peter did , he raised people from the dead , healed how many different diseases . The same miracles Jesus did, Peter did. I will say this. The Bible was written. Nothing can be added or taken out of it . If the apostles were specifically chosen for that specific time by Jesus himself, even apostle Paul audibly and physically met Jesus on the road to Damascus . This is different than when people are born again. In John 3 , it lays this divine intervention out. Every believer till this day experiences the regeneration of the heart and the intellectual understanding of sin, their sin, and who Jesus is . That divine drawing to Christ by the Holy Spirit is only granted by the father which was pre destined to happen before the foundation of the world. Now argue that all you want but his sovereignty and his ordinances are true , and it’s in scripture. Someone born of the spirit of God , is Gods doing , not ours. This is diffent than what Peter expiernced , John, apostle Paul , they met the risen lord . We have not . Believes know Christ by the Holy Spirit and his word. Exactly why he told Thomas about the holes in his hands and feet, people who doubt and don’t believe just because they haven’t seen. The Holy Spirit is our comforter. I will close with this because I already wrote a book. If I sat in a Catholic Church and did not question why this and why that , then how can a believer discern what is true and not true. Who is our teacher. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and promised that no one can snatch them out of my father’s hand . I and the father are 1. I believe that’s John 10. So , with that being said , I know who my teacher is and I know when my soul is spiritually fed. It don’t get fed by tansubstantion, as the Catholics believe. The wafer and whine is not who Jesus is. The context of Christ in that situation is not. literal.
The passage in Matheu has specific reference to when a brother wronged another! It is not a passage that refer to the church per say, but more how to handle conflict within the church community! It in no way, whatsoever, set the church on a higher footing vis-a-vis the "Word of God", aka, the Bible! Not even in reference!!
Secondly:
It is in no way saying the "church" can make any decision, and God in heaven will endorse it! All decisions made by the church, should be measured against God, and that is done by following the Word of God! The Bible should be the authority, and the church the instrument through which that authority is applied! Therefore, if the "church" does NOT follow the Bible/scripture, then the "church's" applied authority is simply not binded in heaven! The "church" cannot be an authority above God! God gave us His word, scripture/Bible so we may know His way and His wish. We cannot apply higher authority that God on earth! God, by Jesus and in the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority, NOT THE CHURCH!
The "church" is second to God and His word! Not you, and not the false church of Catholicism will ever get me to accept it the other way, never!!
Even just applying ones mind, logically, one has to accept that God is the ultimate authority, not a church, and surely not the Roman Catholic Church, that does not even follow Scripture completely! The only tangible, logical and realistic way to seek Gods authority, is in scripture! He gave that to us so we can know what it is he wants us to do! The church is subservient to that! If that does not make sense to you or anyone, then it simply means you have stayed from God, and His word! Simple as that!!!
Mary had other children (for example, James)after the birth of Jesus, which the Bible states clearly. Joseph was the father of these kids. Sex = Mary is not a perpetual virgin.
Also, the church on earth can make decisions that are bogus and unbiblical, for example teaching that Mary 100% went to heaven, infant baptism, or that priests must be celibate, although most of the disciples probably had wives by the time they met Christ.
No she didn't. Not her biological.
James was not her biological son. James was older. James the Just.
If Joseph was the father of James and James was older than Jesus, then what does that mean? Step brother of Jesus. Joseph was a widower.
Guess what. The RCC church tried to condemn Wycliffe and burn his bones. You think the religious institution has power over God? He is in heaven despite the attempt to curse him to hell by burning his bones.
I love you Sam and think you have amazing insight on so many things - but can't go with you on this one! Your argument in the end does not really come down to what is in scripture but on 'look at the oldest traditions - would the Lord allow His Church to get it so wrong?' Yes. Sincere people can be wrong! Paul was warning about 'preaching another gospel' within 30-odd years after Jesus walked the planet. That is why the New Testament was agreed on...... to say, this is what we believe, in writing! To counteract all the wild stuff that had already started to circulate, as early as the disciples time!! Doesn't take long for humans to find a rut and full in love with it! And looking at what you would call 'the Church' throughout the centuries, I can honestly say that in the main, it does not reflect the gospel of Christ. Full of crooks actually! It is a smokescreen - it has taken the Truth and wrapped it in lies! Sparkle, sparkle, razzle dazzle! All that glitters is not gold. I believe 'the Church' is a whole load of individual Christians/believers in all walks of life, all over the world, seeking the Lord in Spirit and in Truth. By your fruit you shall be known. So, sola scripture for me - because it is the only reliable source. And if I read the gospels, I find a woman who indeed was blessed, but I don't get no perpetual virgin! It think it is important because other 'religions' are also based on 'traditions' handed down. Just cos it's tradition doesn't make it true.
I love your reply and how you explained things. Amen, and God bless!
But Paul commands to follow spoken word 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the end of John's gospel says that Jesus did many other things that are not written (John 21:25). If we then look at James 5:14 the presbyters (elders) of the Church which fulfill a special role by whoe action the Lord forgives sins, why would the apostoles establish this hierarchy (apostoles, presbyters, deacons) if Jesus didn't command it? Why did Jesus give keys to heaven to Peter referencing Isaiah 22:22 if he was just as important as everyone else? Why did He say that Peter was the rock upon which the Church would be built? And lastly Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church so the Church can't preach heresy.
Matthew 1:24-25 NKJV
[24] Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, [25] and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
Genesis 4:1 NKJV
[1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”
Lucky for us, Scripture explains Scripture.
Church tradition that was spoken of, is after Christianity was put in the hands of Roman Governors and Politicians.
I don't trust Politicians.
@@awesomeboy406 Amen
@@awesomeboy406 Do you have any proof of that? Because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.
Thanks to Wycliffe I have a bible to read.
It is NOT ignoring the context of the bible to understand that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. It is your choice to believe that, but the bible does not support your belief.
According to the church fathers, the answer to where all of them got this idea was in an extra-biblical source (adding to the scriptures...) that claimed Jesus was born in a fantastical way... No afterbirth, no umbilical cord, just... simply... appeared. This comes from the protoevangelium of James, or the "Gospel of James." This book does not appear in any of the Bibles, even in the Catholic Bible, yet it is still taught in the Catholic church. It says that not only was Mary a virgin before getting pregnant, she was virgin during birth and a virgin after birth until death. The "Gospel of James" was written c.170 AD.
Whoever adds to or deletes these words...
The Church doesn't cite that book. And which Father of the Church are you claiming said that "all of them got this idea" from this book?
It is inconceivable that a pious Jew like Joseph, knowing what he does about Mary and Jesus, would approach her for conjugal relations. Then there is that Old Testament guy who touches the falling ark of the covenant and dies. The ark is clearly a prefigurement of Mary who bore God in her womb. Then in John 19, when the hour has finally come, the newly reborn baby disciple is entrusted to THE Woman whose seed crushed the head of Satan on the cross. Then Mary is entrusted to her new son the disciple because there is no biological son to take charge of her care. If we read the Bible the way the authors and the hearers of the NT think, read and write scripture this is cl ear. Jesus taught us to pray the Our Father. We, the born again, are a family and Mary is our blessed virgin mother. Jesus is the second Adam who recapitulates creation wresting humanity and the whole world from the dominion of Satan. Mary is the new Eve.
but if you would study historical context for instance, we know that James who wrote the book of James is Jesus earthy brother. who bore him? though the Catholics may argue that he was his half brother, this is not unecuivically proven in scripture or history. The men mr Sam is mentioning who rebuked someone for saying mary bore other children, are not within the biblical error.
My faith in entering heaven and worshiping God is not dependent on my belief that Mary is sinless, whenever I die, Mary is coming to take me to heaven, or I spend some time before Mass begins to pray to the Virgin Mary. It Jesus Christ that died for me on the cross.
Do you still have to physically ingest God to inherit eternal life and to be able to resurrect, when Jesus Christ showed up to stop all the pagan rituals by dying on the cross to put an end to it?
Then the same ritual belief is transferred over onto Jesus Christ that He tried to stop. The mithraic religion was practiced in Rome at the time of Constantine. They easily converted.
You change because you are a chameleon and you know nothing about the origin of pagan Roman Catholicism. How they carried their pagan practices and mixed it with Christianity. Like Mary and baby Jesus in RC is Semiramis and Nimrod. An ancient pagan icon known to many civilization - mother and child. Sun god worship very obvious in RC church design.
You don't know what your saying,we believe in mother and son to be Mary and Jesus,not the pegan practice.You don't know that what you believe is very important,what you believe is strong that why Jesus want the Jews to believe his the son of God because our believe is strong.what you believe work for you.
Satan knows these scriptures and can deceive. " 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them."
I want to make a clarification. The Catholic Church did not split, leave . It was the others who left the Church , the Catholic church.
That is correct. The Catholic Church did not leave. The Roman Catholic "Church" left. By the way, if that confuses you, the name of the "Eastern Orthodox" Churches is "One Holly Catholic and Apostolic Church".
@goranvuksa1220 lol sure you keep believing your truth
@ Not only that RC was a small part of the Church at that time, but just look at the Oriental Orthodox. They split from the Church before RC, while Rome was still part of the Church. Then Rome split (or as you think Orthodox did). For 15 centuries RC and Orthodox had no contact with Oriental Orthodox. Then they made contact. The only difference between EO and OO is the same that was 15 centuries ago. RC has a whole list of dogmas and traditions that are entirely different from EO and OO. So, its either that EO and OO, by accident, changed their dogmas and traditions, including the view of the Pope of Rome, in the exact same way, or they kept the Apostolic faith and tradition, and RC was changing it. Also, the main reason for the EO/RC split was filioque, and addition to the Nicene creed. Third ecumenical council anathemised anyone who would add anything to the creed. And anathemized from the body of Christ, you are no longer guided by the God Holly Spirit, so its easy to change true dogmas and tradition, since there is no protection from God. You choose in which you would believe.
@goranvuksa1220 that's not what dr the church fathers believed and wrote.
@@goranvuksa1220 wrong.
Catholic Christian since the beginning was in Rome.
*East* *Church* :
- Jerussalem lead by Yakobus Adelphos (James)
- Anthioch Syria lead by Lukas
- Alexandria Egypt lead by Markus
*West* *Church* :
- Rome lead by Simon Petrus (Peter)
No doubt she was pure and remained pure while she carried Jesus in her womb. For that she was truly blessed above all other women.
Having other children while in a marriage would not diminish her value and holiness in the eyes of God.
Why the “Church” would hold on to that is beyond my understanding when such versus as Acts 1:14 is so clear.
If she had other children Jesus would’ve NEVER entrusted her to St John when he was on the cross. Mary would’ve simply gone to live with any of her other children.
I’m think that is speculation on your part brother. Just as I could speculate that Jesus perhaps in trusted John because he knew John would achieve great things as an apostle and preferred him to guide her through her continued spiritual journey. Again Acts 1:14 and Matthew 13:55 and so on.
I’m not trying to argue, I’m just trying to understand the reasoning behind this within Catholicism.
@@ronyc3270 The reasoning is that Mary is the untouchable Arc of the Covenant. And when you look at the names of the supposed brothers of Jesus half of the names is brought up refering to children of Mary of Clopas without distinction so we can reason they weren't siblings.
@@jankowal260There is some ambiguity in some versus, but Acts 1:14 is clear with stating Mary, the mother of Jesus…
My opinion for what ever is worth, is that she is Holy and could be considered a human tabernacle for her roll in carrying the Lord in her wound. I just don’t see anything that puts her in a position of authority and praise through images of candles and statues and funneling requests through her.
So the question I would have then would be, who saves your soul, Jesus and the saints, or only Jesus?
@@ronyc3270 "who saves..." That depends of what you mean by saved. If He hadn't died for me I couldn't be saved but the saints intercede for us before Him and thanks to that intercision He gives us more graces than if we would just pray by ourselves because the saints are as righteous as can be and the prayer of the righteous is worth more. Edit: And it seems the first part of your comment is cut.
Sam has fallen hard
@@saycheese6773 God does say in His Word that He opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. I can't listen to Shamoun as I don't see real humility. I actually see a bully
Originally, the church was the Jewish church. Jesus comes, and it DIVIDES. Jews and Messianic Jews (All the apostles considered they were Jews or converting to Jews that followed Jesus' teachings). During the first century, they started categorizing them as Christians, and called the "universal" church (which gives us the name Catholic), not as a proper name, but as an adjective. ALL THIS is in the first century.
It's not until Constantine that they START calling it the Roman CATHOLIC Church during the Nicean coucil (let's be honest, why would Jewish people would call their church after the country that so much despised them? Roman? Really?).
The first mention of Mary's perpetual virginity was in the protoevangelium of James (the "first" gospel of James), a book from the second century even Catholics consider apocryphal.
In Acts 1: 23 -26, the apostles prayed for a correct choice of who to take Judas' place. Can any catholic tell me how many "hail Mary"s did the apostles pray? How many times do you people think the apostles went to ash Wednesday? How many times did they recite the Confiteor prayer? How many times did the apostles celebrated Eucharist?
Jesus taught A, then men invented B.
The church is roman in the sense that it serves the bishop of rome, and thus roman, and its cannonical law is structered after the roman system. Its not that the early church wasnt Catholic.
@@zackwumpus9364 Yeah, why would a Church serve anyone but God? Who is the bishop or Rome to have the one true church serving him?
Perpetually virginity is not necessary for Mary unless you are committed to something other than scripture. May Gods grace be sufficient
Yes it is necessary. Because of the uniqueness of her role in the history of salvation as the person who gave the flesh to the Lord
@ all glory be to the almighty creator.
@@antoniussukardi9029What Salvation 😂? IF She was Sinless, Perpetual Virgin and all these other Gifts Catholics bestowed on Mary why didn't the Scriptures simply mention it😂?
@@ownone7759
yes its necessary, it might cause the heretic when its not clear of her role in history of the salvation.
@ salvation is available for those aware or unaware. We can access the holy father directly in the name of the son always and be filled with his Holy Spirit personally. She to would have pointed you all to do all as HE says. Not my words. Scripture
Ok, this is kind of ridiculous. Mary was chosen by God to deliver and raise Jesus, but she was not 'holy'. Looking at Jesus' words in Luke:
Luke 13:2-4
New American Standard Bible
2 And Jesus responded and said to them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans just because they have suffered this fate? 3 No, I tell you, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or do you think that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse offenders than all the other people who live in Jerusalem?
The reverse is also true. Mary was blessed BECAUSE she gave birth to Jesus, but God could have chosen other women who fit the qualifications. God could have given birth to Jesus through any humble God-fearing woman who fit the criteria. Balam's donkey wasn't 'special' or 'blessed above all donkeys' because it talked. Mary was blessed above all women because of Jesus, not despite Him. Deifying Mary (a mortal) is where this line of thought is trying to lead. Remember, outside of the birth announcement, all the angels sent to talk to Jesus' parents ALWAYS addressed Joseph, not Mary.
Addressing 'writings' as valid just because they are old is not good. There were MANY false teachings beginning in the church in the time of Paul and he writes specifically about them.
Mark 7:6-7
New American Standard Bible
Followers of Tradition
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
The reason the early 'traditions and thoughts' of the early Church were not put into the Bible was because they were not necessary to get us to where God was taking us. If they were that important, they would be in scripture.
The scriptures literally say “is his mother not with us? And his brothers…” and then names the names of Mary’s sons.
Do some research into the language used. They did not use all words the same way we do.
@@coastalrecon5523 Sure Bud, You believe in Your Sinless, Perpetual Married Virgin Mary that's Co-Redeemer and Co-Madiatrix Without the scriptures mentioning any of these Important Facts because God simply forgot to Say She is the Queen of Heaven😂
Dude how do you not know these are FAQ that have been debunked a billion times lol. That same word used in the original manuscripts can also be used of cousins or half brothers, so no this doesn’t prove anything.
Blood brother and "bro" are two different words in Greek
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the brothers of Jesus are Mary's biological children.
How on earth would God in all His might would send His only Son God and man to be born in and and be raised by a regular woman but not the most Holly woman that ever existed. Please!!
The argument against Mary is just an anticatholic argument stsrted not even by Martin Luther.
Sex in marriage is what holy women do. If they don't engage in sex with their husband there is actually something wrong as the Bible clearly explains.
But hey mix in some Roman/Greek/Babylonia religion and you get to such things.. same as requesting priests nit to marry.
That's not something from the Bible.
The Bible is not the only source of truth, so is tradition and the Holy Church.
Jesus chastised the scribes and the Pharisees for their traditions.
And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION."
...
“Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have
delivered: and many such like things you do.”
{Mark 7:9&13}
But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?”
{Matthew 15:3}
“For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the *tradition of men* as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.”
{Mark 7:8}
Paul,
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the *tradition of men* after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
{Colossians 2:8}
Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished unto all good works*
{2 Timothy 3:15-17}
Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers: *for thy testimonies are my meditation*
{Psalm 119:98-99}
*Thy word* is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
{Psalm 119:105}
The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple*
{Psalm 119:130}
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, *making wise the simple*
{Psalm 19:7}
@@larrybedouin2921 1 Is it essential to know the canon of Scripture? That is, if we are to be guided only by Scripture, is it not true that we have to agree on what Scripture is? However, we do not know the canon of Scripture through Scripture. We know it through the aforementioned testimony of the Holy Fathers, or if you want to accept it from the Church itself, through the tradition of the church.
2_I speak of the tradition of the church, not of any tradition, that you use the word "tradition" as a mere human invention, is your invention. Tradition is rejected by Protestants because they believe that tradition implies human doctrines as opposed to divine teaching, which is false.
3 Thess 2, 15 where St. Paul says: “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you have learned from us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
The main concept that is spoken of in the text is Tradition, the two sub-concepts that underlie it are Scripture and the oral teaching of the Church, of the apostles.
4_ there is no place where the Bible says that Scripture is necessary and sufficient for salvation
5 2 Pet 3:16: “There are things in them (the writings of St. Paul) that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and the weak interpret, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
We must recognize the difficulty of certain passages of Scripture and, therefore, that we have no guarantee that particular individuals will interpret it correctly on all occasions.
In 2 Pet 1:20-21 it says “Keep in mind that no prophecy of Scripture can be interpreted by one's own will, for no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” With this text, St. Peter is finally saying that those who interpret Scripture privately do so outside the confines of the teaching Church. This does not mean that Catholics cannot read the Bible or have our opinions on what it says or interpret it. But we must always submit to the Magisterium of the Church.
Greetings.
@@larrybedouin2921 1 Is it essential to know the canon of Scripture? That is, if we are to be guided only by Scripture, is it not true that we have to agree on what Scripture is? However, we do not know the canon of Scripture through Scripture. We know it through the aforementioned testimony of the Holy Fathers, or if you want to accept it from the Church itself, through the tradition of the church.
@@larrybedouin2921 2_I speak of the tradition of the church, not of any tradition, that you use the word "tradition" as a mere human invention, is your invention. Tradition is rejected by Protestants because they believe that tradition implies human doctrines as opposed to divine teaching, which is false.
3 Thess 2, 15 where St. Paul says: “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you have learned from us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
The main concept that is spoken of in the text is Tradition, the two sub-concepts that underlie it are Scripture and the oral teaching of the Church, of the apostles.
Sham using tmusing this scriptures out if context by concluding their belief about perpetual. And how you assured that before the splitting of the Church that the Christians believe in perpetual of Mary. If you use solo scriptural what verses of the Bible that proves the perpetual of Mary and align with the Historical evidence of the first Church established by the Apostles? Or just using this scriptures to deceived many and not aligned with the True Gospel of Jesus. Even the name Mary did not mentioned in other books as she has the big part to a Christian beliefs. Even Paul and Peter will not agree with your stand because they did preach the Gospel even to their written books that portrayed Mary's perpetual.
The Arc of the Convent could not be touched, so much so for the True Arc who held the True Manna come down from Heaven in her womb, whom all generations would call her Blessed, except by Prots who do not know historic sacred teaching.
So was her Maidenhead reattached after she delivered Jesus because I see no way he didn’t break it as he came out
"Nothing is impossible with God" - St. Luke 1:37. By your logic, Sarah wife of Abraham had no way of becoming pregnant post-menopause either.
@JeanMarieDuchesne granted but why would god force her live a life what to many woman ( especially back then ) to an unnatural life of abstinence especially as he knew that she was doomed to outlive her child in my mined god would not be so cruel and give her many children to comfort and care fore her in her old age as fore Sarah that was a different miracle and what was needed for her to conceive
Paul said listen to me because I am giving you Gods word , the early church would have followed the same principle. Sam has it exactly backwards. The clear passage of scriptures is that jesus had other brothers and sisters.
Why did the Lord allow the universal church to come up with the perpetual virginity? A better question to ask would be why did jesus allow the Scriptures to claim Mary had other brothers and sisters? Again, Sam has it exactly backwards.
Where is the answer to the Scriptures contradictioning Catholic tradition? Sounds like Sam believes the bible is wrong
@@joelacona6057 The issue is the Greek words for brothers and sisters used in those verses can mean both biological siblings and close relatives. That's the issue. You can't just assume it must be the meaning you prefer when the words have both meanings. The question then becomes what meaning was intended in those verses? This is why context matters. Catholics consider these things:
1) Jesus gave his mother to John as he died and Mary went with John and lived with him. So John took charge of her after her son died. This would've been impossible if she had other sons after Jesus whom the law of God commanded to take care of her after both Joseph and Jesus died. The idea that she would've gone to someone else would've been impossible. You also don't get the impression that there were other children when Jesus was lost at the temple when he was twelve.
2) The attitudes of these brothers: Mary was fully aware that Jesus performed miracles as seen in the scene at the wedding of Cana. She was a believer. Yet these "brothers" of his were oblivious of this side of Jesus! When Jesus went public, they were as shocked as everyone else. Instead of believers, they thought Jesus was insane!
- It simply beggars belief that they had spent three decades under the same roof with Jesus, Mary, and Joseph and we're this unaware of Jesus' "other" side. It's more likely that Mary was very aware and comfortable with Jesus doing these things because she had witnessed this aspect for thirty years, but these men called brothers were completely unaware because they were not witnesses; they never lived with Jesus but were merely relatives with limited exposure to him.
- In addition, these brothers felt comfortable trying to take charge over Jesus and trying to force him to stop his ministry, yet we're supposed to believe they were younger brothers...in that culture and laws? How? Jesus would've had the authority over them, especially after Joseph died, not the other way around. But if these were make relatives like older cousins of Jesus, then their behavior and assumption (that they could do that) then makes more sense.
3) Lastly, the names given for the brothers seem to match (the first two) those of Jesus' cousins (sons of his mother's sister) given elsewhere. So that's another "coincidence" where Jesus' close relatives (cousins) just happened to match the same names and chronology as the so-called brothers. More likely they are the same set! In addition, no one in the early church believed these brothers were biological brothers. It'd be astonishing for them to lose such information when they greatly revered Jesus close relatives who all became believers and church leaders after the resurrection.
So, given all these, it's more likely that between the two meanings of the words used for "brothers and sisters", the meaning intended was that of "close relatives." So this is not a question of who follows scripture or not: both of those meanings are well within scripture and our meaning is contextually supported by all the others facts depicted in scripture about Jesus' circumstances and life.
@user-jn8nn6bf6v Wrong , the issue is not the Greek , the issue is people like you lying about Gods word , to adopt or adapt your context that it simply meant brotherhood or sisterhood is nonsense, the passage makes perfect sense as his biological siblings, it names them these were not generic people .
Read it again and tell me in all good conscience it makes any sense to say they were referring to these people as brotherhood/sisterhood while same time excluding themselves? It specifically says carpenters son , and his mother Mary, it then moves on (with the sane theme , naming his brothers as was jewish custom. I wonder how you people sleep at night lying so much about Gods words just to keep your own traditions. it's sickening.
Mat 13:55-56
“Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
@@joelacona6057 I am not lying. It's not my fault you think the Bible was written in 21st century American English. The word there is adelphoi, a Greek word meaning brothers and close relatives. It is used to describe Abraham and Lot as brothers, for example. And as to your listed verse, I already answered: Those names listed there, the first two align with the names given for Jesus' cousins James, Jose's, sons of Mary's sister called Mary wife of Clopas, as listed in Matthew 27:56. ("Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.") And as is typical with Al the anti-Matian internet warriors, you ignored all the other scriptural points I made, including Jesus himself and his beloved disciple John both treating Mary at Jesus' death like a true widow who was understood as someone left without a close male relative to take charge of her care. Indeed, these so-called brothers would also be treating Mary this way by allowing her to move in with John.
You can cling to your beliefs but they are no more legitimate than mine or better than that of all Christians for 1,500 years, including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, ie before some Protestants 500 years ago decided, even against their so-called Reformers, that they understood the Bible better than everyone else.
When those prots face Jesus face to face then they will understand the Marian doctrines.
Her son Jesus Christ will be the judge!!
@cartert3792
"It's not an error according to the Universal Church, which all held the same belief as he said in this video, guided and reminded of the truth by the Holy Spirit. If they all share that same belief and affirm that doctrine then it is essentially blasphemous to the Holy Spirit to claim that doctrine is wrong. This is the point Sam is making."
Are used to respect you, but you have lost your way
Read Jesus's message to the seven churches in the book of Revelations...I guess the "Church" didn't always get it right...eh?
Matthew 1:24-25
New International Version
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25
King James Version
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25
New American Standard Bible
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 [a]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.
I have used these three Bible versions, so that there is no translational misunderstanding, to clarify that Mary was 'known' by Joseph (devirginized) after the birth of Jesus per scripture.
NIV is horrible.
Joseph never touched her. She vowed to God to never know a man.
Joseph did not discuss his sex relations with the public.
The consummation of marriage is implied to legalize it. Any other children were not from Mary, but Joseph and his former wife who died.
@@luvpamelanewton What's your Bible reference?
So you have Virgin Mary (until Jesus born) have sex rightfully and ss she is biblically supposed to, with Joseph and giving birth to other children.
But as "the Church" has the power to bind and lose on earth andvin heaven, so they could declare.her an eternal virgin many centuries after the fact got it.
And one more question: I have not drunken any beer until I was 17 or 18 years old. What are the odds you would claim that I never drank a beer in my life???
Nobody have read the vers where it names jesus's brothers and sister?
Yes, but they give some form of excuses to it as well.
Sam, you changed your position because you’re simply on a Catholic wave… but the “Perpetual Virginity” is based on an APOCRYPHAL account that talks about a cadre of Temple Virgins that Mary was part of. There was absolutely no such Temple group. Second, the context of the Bible clearly accepts the fact that Mary had other children. In fact, Mary was so human that she even doubted the mission of Jesus Christ, even thinking that he was besides himself. You’re being distracted with garbage doctrines. Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?
Does the RCC teach baptism of the Holy Spirit? Answer: No.
Why not?
Apostol Paul rebuick Peter the stone not the Rock not the head not the fundament of the church he rebuick him that was more than contradict him was apostol Paul wrong because according to you sam Peter is the Rock was Paul wrong? And Peter the "Rock " right or wrong the Rock can't be wrong sam but Peter your Rock was wrong according to apostol Paul sam so my question to you who was right because if jesus put apostol Peter on top of the church then apostol Paul was wrong for rebuick him in front of the other apostols when apostol Paul confronted him
1 Timothy 2:5
King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
- I guess we are expected to believe Jesus sublet mediation to Mary sometime after this canonized scripture was written- making it 'temporarily true'- unlocking pandoras box of the whole of scripture can be 'temporarily true'.
Romans 3:23
King James Version
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
- of course, the 'Mary was sinless clause' nullifies this as being absolute truth so that we can maintain tradition. Notice all is women and men inclusive from the time of Adam to the return of Jesus. If Mary was sinless, then we can be sinless without the need for Jesus- making the cross pointless.
- Mary ascended is also a tradition I think, oh, let's not forget Lilith! Slight expansion of the timeline we can include all the Gnostic gospels.
Quicksand anybody?
What if, forgive my ignorance, tradition was in error. Joseph 'knew' (in the Biblical sense- pardon the pun) Mary after the birth of Jesus (as scripture says). Of course, unless 'tradition' says Joseph got 'amnesia' and later recovered (joke). And what if Jesus' sisters and brothers were (I know it's crazy) His brothers and sisters- not half brothers and sisters? Then various other scripture would come into alignment- like Jesus, on the cross, giving Mary to be taken care of by the Apostle John (the responsibility of the first born- which was Jesus)- which otherwise would have been the responsibility of James the brother of Jesus (who would have been older by the eternal virgin perspective; whereas Jesus would have not have had the responsibility nor right to make that call). There are so many glitches introduced by this point of view and no benefits.
I guess that's why Jesus warned us against traditions of men ahead of time.
Compared to explicit in the bible that she had other kids
I like Sam, but I don’t believe everything he believes and teaching. Sam is a very good historian of the Bible. God has blessed him with wisdom, but he doesn’t seem to have the Holy Spirit that’s guiding him. He tends to rely on facts more than praying to God for the truth. I think if he pray to God more for answers, God would reveal to him the truth.
Communion was meant to be a celebration meal in thanksgiving for the atonement Jesus Christ did for us by dying on the cross. Believing in Jesus Christ is the ingesting of his teachings spiritually. He equated himself figuratively with food the Jews could understand. Manna is OT. They knew the meaning of what it did back then. So He related it to himself. He is the Bread of Life. What was new to the apostles is that the passover meal they ate was related to his dying on the cross instead of the lamb they sacrifice. He showed them He is the Saviour, the Lamb of God. Believing in Jesus Christ is eating his words. Jesus Christ said believe in Him you will be saved.
The RCC teaches the means to get saved is by ingesting Jesus Christ physically instead. You have to literally eat him physically to inherit eternal life. So the priest has to physically transubstantiate it into Jesus Christ and the people consume it. Bishops became priests.
This is actually a Roman mithraic practice. Egypt practiced it too. The passover lamb is another means. Pagans easily converted when they were told they didn't have to change their religious belief in Rome. They consumed God to obtain eternal life by eating his divine body physically.
Is this the false worship Jesus Christ tried to replace which was practiced as a form of pagan worship? So He equated it to himself like he did with water, wine and mannah, all equated to Jesus Christ, so they would understand what He was saying back then.
These are different interpretations of what the scriptures teach.
Does that mean that st.joseph Mary's husband was a perpetual virgin also?
Some believe he was
It is ridiculous. Sam Shamoun is very arrogant
🤣...that's funny!! Poor guy!! He was punished...
It does not. The Bible or the church never taught that Joseph was a virgin. An object that has no life cannot have eternal life.
Just curious, why do you call him St.?
@@bmq05 The bible doesn't teach that Mary remained a virgin or that she was sinless
Sam, WAS JEROME ABSOLUTELY INERRANT in every one of his beliefs; just like Scripture??
The Vicar(s) of Christ is infalliable...? The vicar of the 'universal' church...?
Pope Francis must be right about the equality of all religions in leading to God. Sam must agree with Pope Francis - surely, truly a little anti-Christos... just a little...
Why does it matter? Jesus is the only one we should be concerned with. Mary is not Jesus. Upon giving birth to Jesus her job was done. Jesus himself pointed out to his disciples through his own words that all believers are his mothers and brothers and sisters, meaning that while we should honor our parents, they are not above any other parents, especially not the believers, and that includes Mary, because there is no difference in Gods eyes. So perpetual virgin, or not, it’s irrelevant and taking attention away from what matters, Christ our Lord.
I think you did a good job Sam. People just have to understand scripture tells us that the church is our teaching authority.
In what chapter and verse?
@ He spends a good amount of time in the video explaining how Jesus gave the church authority to teach us and the church will always be guided by Christ. You should watch the video. Mostly the books of Matthew and Timothy
that first scripture is being used out of context it about how to deal with sin, and not about teaching of doctrine. Context is important
@@Garyajable context is very important and scripture can be difficult to understand, which is the reason why Jesus made the church the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The church is our teacher.
The church’s authority only in so much as it can be backed up by scripture.
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Here Bible said that she gave birth for FIRST born - Jesus
First born means - it must be more and after that we can read
Matthew 13:55-56
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Here we have, Jesus had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters ( because sisters called not by name, but by plural word)
Please do not add to the Scriptures
You are misunderstanding the Scriptures
Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary UPTO the Birth of Christ. THEREFORE, Isaiah 7:14 is prophecy fulfilled. This is the scope of that verse.
Brothers in SEMITIC usage had a broad meaning: cousin, uncle, kinsman. SO not necessarily blood brother only as you wishfully think it is.
PLEASE DONT ADD TO SCRIPTURE
I also love listening to sam Shamoun and his apologetic work but would have to disagree with Him on this. it is true that the Catholic church and belief has shaped Christianity for many years even after the reformation. however, shamouns arguments are based on the precipice that the Catholic church was the only church from the apostolic error which is historically and Biblically false. even before the reformation, there were other denominations which were never catholic and claimed to be older than the catholic church. catholic scholars like cardinal hosius even wrote that this denominations were never part of the reformation itself. this were like the one who later came to be known as anabaptists and others. If this beliefs existed alongside the catholics even amidst violent persecutions, they would atleast have subscribed to this argument that "Mary mother of God" remained a virgin. By using mathew 18, Sams argument is that the perpetuity is as a result of Church declaring it to be so and not that Mary realy remained a virgin.
And who are you to say the catholic church is the truth church again Sam Peter is not the Rock he is the stone jesus called him stone notrock jesus is the Rock
What's your source? Where did Jesus call him "stone?"
@Mission-520 the Bible jesus called him petro, piedra stone jesus didn't called him Rock
@@martinarzaga5681 That's not a good answer to my question. I'm asking you *where in the Bible* did Jesus call Peter "stone?" Thanks in advance for specificity.
The Muslims believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is Holy as well but Christianity believes that Jesus alone is the Holy One of Israel. The Blessed Virgin Mary tells us in her prayer that Jesus is her savior Luke 1:46-48 . My soul magnifies the Lord and and my spirit rejoices in God my savior. Who is Mary’s savior. ? ❤
Matthew 1:25
The Catholic Church teaches Mary needs a savior.
@@everythingaboutmusic6209 Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews. 1:25 was written to demonstrate only that Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. STOP reading into and adding to scripture!
Known pathological troll.
Satanic hate speech reported.
Matthew 1:25
[25]and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
What does" did not know her till she had brought forth her first born mean"?
You should look up what it is in the Greek, specifically the word brother before yapping
@@zeefranx4509 Transliteration
kai ouk eginōsken autēn heōs hou eteken huion ekalesen to onoma autou Iēsoun
Literal English translation
"And not He was aware her until of whom she had brought forth son He called the [the] name of Him” Jesus
This was an excellent explanation of sensus fidelium and of the importance of the Holy Spirit preserving the Church from error from within union.
Indeed, especially since they warned of a false book/gospel, which is the bases of all of this maryology. But y’all don’t like to see that much.
The binding and loosening in context is about forgiveness, not doctrine. Contextually, Sam and others have misused that passage.
What about 12000 of the tribe of Judah that will be the part of the 144000 first fruit ??? Where they come from ha ??? Mary and Joseph had children and it is written !! The lineage from Set to Jesus Christ ( his brothers and sisters ) you think really that God didn t expend the lineage until today ?? 12000 TRIBE OF JUDAHHHH
Yes Mother Mary was virgin till Lord God who is Jesus Christ of nazereath took her to heaven
Holy Theotokos, I ask your Son to forgive me for dishonoring you so many years!
So, you think that God told Joseph and Mary that they were not allowed to fulfill the marital due? Absolutely not.
At first Joseph wasn't going to marry Mary because he found out she was pregnant. But the angel told him it was of the Holy Spirit and to not be afraid to take Mary his wife. Now think about it-- if God had told him that he could never have intercourse with his wife, that might have made Joseph rethink things again!
The error is reprehensible. The false doctrine makes Mary out to be a sinner who denied her husband the marital due. The marriage bed is undefiled. But some believe they are holier than God and cannot agree with His ways.
i totally agree with you.
"if God had told him that he could never have intercourse with his wife, that might have made Joseph rethink things again!" That's absurd. Joseph was a holy man and you expect him to say: Sorry I won't take care of my God who is going to save me because I won't be able to consumate marriage with His mother? Mary is the untouchable Arc of the Covenant.
It's quite scary to think scriptures like Matthew 1:25 are unclear. If we can't even understand that, how do we know we're right about the faith as a whole.
@ People who falsely believe that God is defiled when He indwells us, probably don't have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.
@ That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. Because similar wording is used in Matthew 28:20 (and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.) Does that mean Jesus will leave the apostoles after the end of the age?
This is pure dogma, (and that doesn't necessarily means its bad) but here Sam is just trying to play with Scriptures (as any Apologist does, thats what they do) in order to reach a conclusion he already agreed in his mind.
We all do this, accept certain "truths" and then find a way to support them using the Biblie, this isnvery normal in any Christian believer, changing beliefs and then rearrange scriptures in order to support them.
This is not something inherently bad, please don't misunderstand me.
Personally I dont believe tha Mary kept her "virginity" all her life, because the data we found in the Bible, doesn't support that claim, BUT I dont have any problem thinking she might indeed was a virgin throughout all her life.
But I know that this belief is not well supported by Scripture and it finds its strength mainly in ancient traditions.
Sam is a GREAT apologist, and as one, he'll find a way to support any new beliefs he might have in the future.
Christianity is not based on what you think but on what the Church teaches because the Church was established by Christ and given authority to teach. The role of the individual believer is to accept the Faith. Claiming to have another revelation which contradicts the Church is what heretics do, and all such claims must be false or else Christianity is false. You guys need to deal with that head on.
@MillionthUsername and that is your opinion.
@ No, it's not an opinion. It's a fact that Christianity is not based on what you think but on the teaching of the Church. How can anyone say otherwise without contradiction?
@MillionthUsername and , again, that is your opinion. You clearly haven't understood what Christianity really means.
@@melodygn Well, give some sort of argument for what "Christianity really means" then because your premise makes no rational sense at all.
I love you Sam! But it sounds a bit like mental gymnastics.. so Joseph married a woman he never knew???
I pray for brother Sam as he thinks he can explain everything but he needs to humble himself to the Holy Spirit don’t always think he is above all others brother in Christ Jesus I don’t agree with him in all his teachings but I love that he is seeking God to give Him Glory as we all are I was a Catholic at one time I’ve learned that the church is Gods children and we all read the word of God to live as His children giving Him all the Glory for we are His through Christ Jesus our Lord so I still say thank you to brother Sam may our Lord Jesus bless you and your family!
This Shamoun is a bit mouthy with his interlocutor. Pushiness repels.
I know, I don't like him. He is arrogant. He doesn't understand the real church.
@Rob-j5l Yes, he repels more than appeals or attracts.
@scented-leafpelargonium3366 That's what those with a religious spirit do.
@POPEBULLSHITTHEFIRST And non-religious with another spirit put expletives like BULLSH*T in their username? That would repel anyone more than being religious. 🙃
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart 🤍 be ACCEPTABLE IN THY SIGHT O LORD God my Redeemer.
For every IDLE WORD that a man speaketh, he shall give account of it in the Day of Judgement.
Will that be your username in heaven? 🤔
@@scented-leafpelargonium3366 Not necessarily, there is alot of very strong language used throughout the bible.
Wycliffe was already in heaven...