DEBATE: The Marian Dogmas Contradict Scripture, Trent Horn Vs. Steve Christie

[Music] [Applause] this [Music] g'day g'day welcome to pints with aquinas my name is matt fradd and today on the show we'll be hosting in fact we are hosting a debate uh between steve christie and trent horn we're going to be debating that the marian dogmas contradicts scripture obviously steve being the protestant is going to take the affirmative there's going to be 15 minute openings and then seven minute rebuttals then four minute rebuttals then a ten minute cross-examination then we're going to have a 30 minute audience q a and we'll be drawing from our local supporters and patrons and any super chats we might get in before we get to five minute closing statements uh before i do anything else though i want to say a big thank you to the catholic woodworker for sponsoring this show the catholic woodworker make the absolute greatest rosaries you can you can think of so go check them out today they make home altars all sorts of things here i'll give you a little look at their website here the catholic woodworker so when steve you know recants uh today and becomes a catholic i'm just joking steve i'm just just playing but uh oh it's possible you know you might need a rosary might have some protestants want some catholics looking for a good rosary good home altar so check them out they've got really really great rosaries um they're not too dainty so that they break in your pocket they're not too beefy so that they're almost impossible to put in your pocket they are just beautiful catholicwoodworker.com catholicwoodworker.com click that link in the description below and use the promo code there to get 10 off all right good here we go um g'day steve g'day trent nice to have you good to be here okay steve you are going to be beginning with 15 minutes so whenever you're ready i'll i'll click the timer some of the ways trent and i would agree that a dogma contradicts scripture is explicitly implicitly or partially so even if that dogma has defined ex cathedra by a pope by an ecumenical council or by the magisterium if it contradicts scripture that dogma must be rejected the dogma of the perpetual virginia of mary contradicts scripture in the following ways while the greek word adelphoid translated brothers can have numerous meanings in scripture the specific greek word adelfei translated sisters only has two one one's natural sister such as a sister of the same parents or a half-sister or two a believing sister such as a christian sister it is used this way consistently in the new testament as well as in the septuagint where it is used over a hundred times such as the sister kingdoms of israel and judah who worship the same one true god of the old testament it is never used for a female non-sibling relative in either testament nor in its greek when the new testament writers wish to convey female non-sibling relatives such as elizabeth and mary they chose other greek words such as zumgunes or nepsios see also luke 14 12 and 2116 where the evangelist uses different greek words to distinguish relatives from brothers therefore when mark 6 3 refers to jesus brothers and sisters not honoring him we know this refers to jesus younger half siblings when matthew 1 25 writes joseph kept mary a virgin until she gave birth to a son the specific greek words heis who when translated until is used consistently in the new testament to refer to a change in condition while the new testament does use different greek words translated until to refer to the condition continuing after the event such as akre mekri ice and even halos on its own hayes who is never used once this way in the entire new testament the nab a catholic translation authorized by the confraternity of christian doctrine and approved by the national conference of catholic bishops and the united states catholic conference supports this quote the greek word translated until does not exclude normal marital conduct after jesus birth if matthew wished to convey mary's virginity was perpetual there would be no need to add until she gave birth to a son she would have simply ended with he kept her a virgin or added throughout her marriage the isaiah 7 14 prophecy only indicates that mary was to remain a virgin during her pregnancy and up to the messiah's birth the nab continues quote the evangelist is simply concerned to emphasize that joseph was not responsible for the conception of jesus which is why matthew stresses the child who has been conceived in her is of the holy spirit when isaiah prophecy states that the virgin will bear a son it is not implying her virginal integrity remained intact after his birth nor that her virginity would extend throughout her entire life but only to stress that the messiah's birth would be supernatural and that jesus was divine as a believing jew and christian mary would not have disobeyed god who commanded married couples to be fruitful and multiply nor would she have deprived her husband as the apostle paul wrote the wife must fulfill her duty to her husband and does not have authority over her own bodies so that satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control first corinthians 7 3-5 luke 2 7 describes jesus as the firstborn of mary although the greek word prototicus translated firstborn can indicate firstborn opening the womb and is used this way in the new testament both the old and the new testaments also use firstborn to indicate firstborn among other siblings such as esau being isaac's firstborn and reuben as jacob's firstborn meaning they were not firstborns out of their father's wombs considering men don't have wombs but first born among their other children see genesis 35 23 deuteronomy 21 15 joshua 6 26 first chronicles 3 1 and hebrews 11 28 where firstborn is also used this way if luke was communicating jesus was mary's only child he would have used the greek word monogamous translated only begotten rather than protacos like he did elsewhere in his gospel such as in luke 7 12 8 42 and 9 38 and in john 3 16 where jesus is the only begotten son of god meaning the only one lastly psalm 69 8 is a messianic verse i have become estranged from my brothers and an alien to my mother's sons because verse 9 begins with four which is a conjunction meaning because since or therefore indicating that the same messiah who would expel experience zeal for your house in verse 9 is also the same messiah whose mother would have other children in verse 8 which prophesied jesus younger half-brothers not believing in him in john 7 3-5 and dishonoring him in mark 6 3-4 which occurred earlier in mark 3 20-21 when they accused jesus of being out of his senses just as the future king david rebuked his oldest brother when jesus mother and brothers approached him later in verse 31 jesus contrasts his biological brothers who dishonored him with his disciples who were his spiritual brothers who did the will of god this passage also contradicts the dogma of the immaculate conception of mary since jesus mother was with jesus brothers in verses 20 to 21 when they accused him of being out of his senses this is also the view of saint john chrysostom as late as the 5th century venerated as a doctor of the church of roman catholicism who also believed mary thought jesus had gone mad other doctors like ambrose augustine irenaeus and others in the early church like tertullian origen hillary of portier and seven popes believed mary was either conceived in sin or committed acts of personal sin including thomas aquinas as late as the 13th century when mary declared god my savior in luke 147 she understood that jesus was the quote savior to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins in acts 5 31 and in titus 2 9-11 which included her own isaiah 49 26 describes god as savior and redeemer echoed in galatians 4 4-5 he might redeem or rescue from bondage to those who were under the law because we which includes mary have redemption the forgiveness of sins colossians 1 14. psalm 130 verse 8 promises god will redeem israel from all its iniquities isaiah wrote the deliver will come out of zion i will take away their sins this is how god as savior is used in both testaments the greek root is used in matthew 1 21 to describe jesus who will save his people from their sins jesus is never referred to as a preemptive savior but as a redeeming delivering savior which includes redeeming and delivering mary from her sins the apostle paul affirms this in first corinthians 15 22 and adam all die meaning all of mankind spiritually including mary which paul clarifies in verses 47 to 49 the first man adam is from the earth earthy the second man christ is from heaven as is the earthy adam so also are those who are earthy and as is the heavenly christ so also are those who are heavenly just as we have borne the image of the earthy we which includes mary we will also bear the image of the heavenly we and also which again includes mary this means mary was earthy like adam before she was heavenly once jesus redeemed and delivered her while jesus was conceived by the holy spirit the psalmist wrote in sin my mother conceived me echoed later by the apostle paul all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god the greek word translated all pas translated everyone which includes mary in her conception but obviously not jesus since scripture explicitly states jesus was without sin since he is the uncreated sinless deity conceived by the holy spirit while mary is a conceived in sin creation if mary was conceived sinless and kept the law perfectly then christ could not be her savior if righteousness comes through the law then christ died needlessly galatians 2 21 if mary kept the law she could not be made righteous since righteousness does not come from keeping the law but through christ's death if she is not righteous then jesus did not redeem her and she is still dead in her trespasses and sins after der mary's days of purification were completed in luke 2 she made burns and sin offerings which according to leviticus 12 was required of mothers to make atonement or to cover their sins which mary would not need to do if she were immaculately conceived this dogma was defined by pope pius ix but not ex-cathedra in 1854 and is not shared by the eastern orthodox despite not schisming with the west until the 11th century demonstrating that this was a much later development foreign to the new testament writers and the early church catholic answers affirms that while quote mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin yet she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of adam such as death this means not only was she conceived sinless but remained sinless her entire life yet evidence of her sinful nature was her lack of exemption of the temporal penalty of death passed on to her from adams while the wages of sin is death refers to spiritual death that is the second death what plunged mankind into the fall was adam's sin which resulted in adam and by extension all of mankind including mary physically dying just as eating from the tree of life would have resulted in adam physically living forever likewise adam eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulted in him physically dying quote in that day you will surely die which he eventually did had adam not sinned he would be alive today as well as mary had she not inherited adam's sin nature a view shared by catholic answers and the second council of orange this contradicts the last dogma of the bodily assumption of mary to heaven infallibly defined ex-cathedra by pope pius xii 1950 which states after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven which strongly implies she died first quote what son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could jesus did not wish to have the body of mary corrupted after death reduced the dust the earliest source sharing in this view that she died first is from the dormition yet if mary did not inherit the stain of original sin passed down from adam she would not have died and therefore no need to rescue her from death before her earthly life ended this also contradicts the biblical purpose of an assumption according to robert tsungenis president of catholic apologetics international unlike jesus ascension assumptions in the bible are under the power of god not the individual being assumed hebrews 11 5 states by faith enoch was taken up so that he would not see death and he was not found because god took him up in second kings 2 11 elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven meaning he did not see death either before being assumed to heaven since his this dogma allows for her to have died before being taken up to heaven it contradicts the purpose of a biblical assumption that the one being assumed would not see death and so their corpse would not be found as the case for both enoch and elijah demonstrates but since it allows for mary to have died then it is much of a partial contradiction to scripture as the dogma of jehovah's witnesses of jesus being the son of god and michael but this dogma would still be a contradiction if mary remained alive before assumption since the biblical purpose of an assumption is so the individual would not see death because this dogma affirms the immaculate conception of mary did not inherit original sin passed down to adam to all of mankind therefore mary would not need to be assumed to heaven to keep her from seeing death if she were conceived sinless regarding proof from scripture for this dogma founder and senior fellow of catholic answers carl keating wrote quote there is none in his book catholicism and fundamentalism understanding that these three catholic marian dogmas contradict scripture has twofold importance one the sole non-falsifiable and fallible authority of the roman catholic church sola ecclesia which teaches these miriam dogmas versus the soul infallible authority of scripture soul of scripture which contradicts them and two they are binding to the faithful catholic who is threatened with an anathema if they reject any of them despite them all contradicting god brief scripture regarding her bodily assumption that pope declared infallibly if anyone should dare willfully to deny that which we have defined let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and catholic faith it is forbidden to any man to change this to oppose encounter it if any man should presume to make such an attempt let him know that he will incur the wrath of almighty god and the blessed apostles peter and paul regarding the immaculate conception the other pope declared but not infallibly the most blessed virgin mary in the first instance of her conception was preserved free from all stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by god and therefore to believe firmly and constantly by all the faithful hence if anyone shall dare to think otherwise let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith and that he has been separated from the unity of the church so these marian dogmas are not optional or fitting for the faithful catholic to believe but are required and binding to the catholic to remain in good standing and communion with the roman catholic church despite them all contradicting god breathed scripture when early followers of jesus began to focus their adoration on mary rather than on christ alone jesus responded rather blessed are those who hear the word of god and observe it thank you steve thank you very much that was a really well articulated uh opening statement and i appreciate it well there we go and right on time well done um if i could just yeah yeah yeah just want to offer an encouragement for those who are watching in the live chat or who watch this later give give the uh person you disagree with uh a listen really try to understand where they're coming from because if after hearing their position you still disagree with it at least you'll be better informed about what protestants or catholics believe so you can better engage them and resist the temptation to attack strawman so i think that was an excellent opening statement we're going to move to trent now for his 15 minute opening trent whenever you begin i'll click the timer all right well matt thank you so much for hosting this debate steve thank you very much for agreeing to debate me again the resolution for this debate is the marion dogmas contradict scripture so steve's defending the affirmative he has the burden of proving that the dogmas contradict scripture i only have to prove there is no contradiction so before i do that let me explain what this debate is not about first this debate is not about whether the bible teaches the marian dogmas or even if the evidence shows that they're true since i don't believe in the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura i don't have to prove these dogmas from scripture alone and more importantly that's not what we're debating in fact protestants believe in many doctrines that are not found in scripture like their 66 book canon of scripture where that public revelation ended in the first century second this debate is not about the church fathers or christian history some protestants cast out on the marion dogmas by claiming they don't appear early enough in church history to count as being apostolic of course this objection becomes a problem for protestants since by this standard many of their doctrines like sola scriptura eternal security solafide would also arrive too late in church history to count as being apostolic but we're not debating whether the marian dogmas have a historical foundation in the writings of the church fathers so let's just stick to scripture finally this debate is not about marian doctrines or theological opinions about mary things like whether she's mediatrix or co-redemptrix we're going to talk about the dogmas of the faith those that have been infallibly defined to be part of divine revelation so i'm going to cover four of them mary being the mother of god ever virgin immaculately conceived and bodily assumed into heaven all right so let's take a look at them first there's the dogma of theotokos mary being the mother of god anyone who denies this dogma automatically contradicts scripture because if jesus is god and mary is the mother of jesus it follows that mary is the mother of god what about the other marian dogmas in order to show these dogmas contradict scripture steve must do one of two things on the one hand he could show the bible teaches the opposite of these dogmas regarding mary as an individual for example if the bible taught that mary gave birth to other children that she committed a sin or that she was not assumed into heaven the dogmas would be falsified or steve could show the bible teaches the opposite of these dogmas in regard to every single human being without exception which would include mary so if the bible taught that every human sorry that every woman gave birth to children or that every person without exception commits personal sins or that no one has ever been assumed into heaven then the dogmas would be falsified so let's apply these standards to the remaining dogmas we'll start with an easy one the bodily assumption of mary does the bible teach that no human being has ever been assumed into heaven well of course not enoch and elijah were assumed into heaven now steve has said well they were assumed into heaven alive and if mary died she would not be assumed into heaven but that's not the case jude 9 talks about the archangel michael contending with the devil disputing about the body of moses and taking the body of moses the dead body of moses that being assumed into heaven and we can safely assume that that that jesus saw the body of moses on the mount of transfiguration also death is not a sign of being a sinner as steve alluded to earlier uh the fact that mary died doesn't prove that she committed a sin any more than the fact that jesus died does not prove that he inherited sin or committed a sin so the fact is does the bible teach that mary was not assumed into heaven no of course not if anything revelation chapter 12 verses 1 through 6 describes mary being in heaven the protestant scholar ben witherington says this figure is both the literal mother of the male child jesus and also the female image of the people of god all right what about the immaculate conception uh conscious steve said this has been infallibly defined though before the ex-cathedra statements of the first vatican council but in his encyclical mystique corporis christi pope pius xii said mary is the new eve who is free from all sin original or personal does the bible say that mary herself committed a personal sin or that she inherited original sin no it doesn't when mary says my soul magnifies the lord and my spirit rejoices in god my savior this doesn't prove that mary committed a sin first mary may be speaking of salvation from dangers in this life rather than dangers in the next life she goes on to say my spirit rejoices in god my savior for or because he has regarded the lowest state of his handmaiden mary then describes how god saves people from threats in this life by exalting the lowly or feeding the hungry god is mary's savior because he regarded her lowly state and she's been lifted out of it by being called to bring the messiah into the world her in that respect mary's magnificat parallels hannah's song in first samuel according to one commentary mary's song like hannah's declares that security and significance are found in a god who would care about the broken and poor enough to give himself to them so here mary can be taught talking about salvation from threats in this life not sin and she doesn't mention sin in this part of luke 1. even if mary were speaking of salvation from sin she may be speaking about god preventing her from sinning and saving her in that way like we might say how a doctor saved someone from a disease by vaccinating them rather than by giving them a pill to cure them after the infection now does the bible teach that everyone has sinned well actually one other point i will bring up is that some people say the bible teaches that mary sinned because it describes her going and offering a purification in accord with the mosaic law but the problem with this argument is that it says in luke 2 22-24 that it's offered for their purification so if you're going to say mary sinned because an offering was made then you'd also have to say that jesus sinned as well rather this is mary simply being obedient to the law just as jesus submitted himself to baptism for the sake of all righteousness all right so the bible does not say that mary committed a sin does it say that every single human being without exception has committed a sin no it talks about the universality of sin like in romans 3 23 all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god but paul is talking about the universality of personal sin between jews and non-jews that's why he says there's no distinction among people in verse 22. or in romans 3 9 paul says all men both jews and greeks are under the power of sin paul is not trying to make a statement about every single individual without exception he's saying that every ethnic group is guilty of sin whether you're a jew or a non-jew however paul can't be saying that every single person commits personal sins because the bible itself contradicts this in isaiah 7 16 it talks about a time before a child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good that children at a young age do not commit personal sins paul himself reaffirms this in romans 9 11 he says of jacob and esau in rebecca's womb they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad this means children who die in early childhood represent millions of examples of people who never committed a personal sin in their entire lives but while infants may not have committed a personal sin they still need salvation in christ because they inherited original sin does the bible say that every human person without exception has been conceived in original sin no in fact the term original sin like immaculate conception is not found in the bible or in the church fathers until the time is saint augustine yet many protestants believe in this doctrine now the doctrine of original sin is true but the bible does not explicitly say that it applies to every single individual without exception in fact the bible often speaks about things like human sinfulness or human mortality as a universal truth and those things really are universal but it doesn't always mention the exceptions that do occur to these universal rules for example in hebrews 9 27 it says that it is appointed for men to die once and then face judgment and this is true for basically every single human being who ever lived except for some exceptions like lazarus and people that jesus raised from the dead who died twice or enoch and elijah who never died because they were assumed alive into heaven yet the presence of those exceptions doesn't disprove the nearly universal truth the sacred author was was affirming so to summarize the bible does not teach that mary sinned nor does it teach that every single human being has committed a sin or inherited original sin without exception so the immaculate conception does not contradict scripture then finally let's look at the dogma of the perpetual virginity of mary obviously the bible does not teach that every woman had sexual relations so we'd only ask does the bible teach that mary had sexual relations now steve mentioned and many other protestants allude to matthew 1 24-25 which says 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 but the greek word for until chaos does not always entail a reversal of condition second samuel 6 23 says mekal the daughter of saul had no child to or jeos the day of her death which of course she did not have children after she died jesus tells the apostles in matthew 28 20 observe all that i have commanded you and behold i am with you always to the close of the age even though jesus will be with the apostles even after the present age comes to an end now steve said that matthew 1 25 and others have said this based off the doctoral work of eric svensen that the greek construction jejus who in this verse always uh demands a reversal of condition uh they would always demand that but that is simply not the case the phrase heis who is used throughout the septuagint or the greek old testament without implying any kind of reversal it may be used this way in acts 25 21 it to say that paul was held in custody until he was sent to rome even though he was still in roman custody after that point uh heyosu was also used in literature that existed at roughly the same time period as the new testament though i will say the septuagint was completed only within a few centuries possibly even one century by the time of jesus's crucifixion so we wouldn't be surprised that septuagintal constructions would be used in the new testament including the fact that jeju can imply a reversal as it does in the greek old testament it wouldn't be surprising to find it in the new testament now as i said we do find this another roughly contemporary literature for mac and for maccabees to be an example or the jewish work joseph and asanov so while not common it is used so you can't use matthew 1 25 to prove mary and joseph had sexual relations matthew was simply not concerned with telling us what did happen after jesus was born his primary concern is to simply say that jesus had no earthly father in fact the protestant reformers john calvin said of matthew 1 25 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 martin luther even called this argument against mary's perpetual virginity based on matthew 1 25 babel and without justification but maybe are there other verses that have talked about that mary gave birth to other children and so she would not be a perpetual virgin no the bible never says mary gave birth to anyone else and no one else is called a son or daughter of mary the bible does describe a group of people as the brethren of the lord but it doesn't say that these people were jesus's biological siblings through mary we'll talk about adelphos more in the rebuttal period but i think steve would agree the word adelphos typically means a person has the same biological father and mother and of course steve doesn't believe that because he believes jesus has no biological father so when we're speaking of the adelphos the brethren the lord it's used in some sort of non-standard way and i think one way that makes sense would be if joseph had been previously married these would be children from his previous marriage making them adoptive brothers and sisters and as such they would be fully jesus's brother and sister the full use of the word adelphos to say here richard bockham for example who rejects a protestant scholar who rejects the perpetual virginity of mary says it's strange jesus is called the son of mary in mark 6 3 rather than the son of joseph but that would make sense if jesus had been born of joseph's second wife mary also the greek word for brother it's not always used uh to represent full brothers in luke 3 1 it's used to describe herod antipas and herod philip who had the same father but they were born of different mothers just as jesus and his brethren were born of different mothers you can also speak of adoptive children using biological language exodus 2 10 says moses became the son of pharaoh's daughter even though she adopted him uh so to summarize then uh steve uh well actually let's see do i have one or anything here one other point that i i would raise is that other arguments that protestants use to try to show that jesus had brothers simply don't work one of these would be psalm 69 where it says of the messiah i have become a stranger to my brethren an alien to my mother's sons the messianic psalms are applied to jesus but not in literal ways for example in psalm 69 5 it says of the messiah oh god thou knowest my folly the wrongs i have done are not hidden from thee so steve would probably say that well jesus has sins but there are sins not his sins okay then psalm 69 5 is applied non-literally to jesus and i would say psalm 9 8 about mothers and brethren is applied non-literally as well this is the view that saint augustine said when he said that in psalm 69 5 the mother is not mary but israel and the brethren are the other sons of israel who spurn him uh in fact so we see here that messianic psalms are often applied to jesus in non-literal ways so just because this psalm talks about my mother's sons it doesn't imply that mary gave birth to other children so ultimately steve has the burden here to show that uh the marian dogmas contradicts scripture and he's brought up a lot of points i've addressed some of them but i'll address those other points he's brought up in my next rebuttal period right thank you very much trent um i would like to demand that everybody hit that like button right now i command that you do it um submit to my authority i've crowned myself king and i demand it to do it do it right now do it or don't do it this is fantastic i'm really enjoying this maybe a little too much we're gonna move into seven minute rebuttals steve whenever you want to begin i'll click the timer okay can you hear me yep we can hear you yes sir okay i just want to make sure okay you can start now um the purpose of this this debate is trent had brought up is about the marion dogmas however prior to this debate and i had agreed not to talk about um mary being referred to as the mother of god because it's not really an issue that we disagree on as long as it is understood how it was originally meant to be a christological title and not a specific title of mary such as being queen of heaven so i'm not going to comment on that um as i had mentioned the way a dogma can contradict scripture is if it's explicit implicit or partial for example a mormon dogma that says that jesus is not god contradicts scripture explicitly such as in john 20 28 when jesus sees or thomas sees jesus and calls him my lord and my god uh implicitly would be liberal catholics and protestants who condone abortion which contradicts scripture stating that life begins at conception and scripture condemns the shedding of innocent blood and another is a partial contradiction such as the dogma of jehovah's witnesses on the identity of jesus while scripturally affirming jesus is the son of god they contradict scripture by claiming that jesus is michael the archangel because scripture affirms michael is a created being while jesus is the eternal deity and this is what i did in the opening statement um when it when the bible talks about all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god as i mentioned my opening statement it's a greek word pass which means everyone which would include mary um there is no exception there when when trent tries to use this argument he's using a logical fallacy referred to as um the argument by exception and of course he might say well what about jesus well as i mentioned the bible's explicit that says that jesus is an exception it says that actually i believe in first uh corinthians um uh trent had mentioned about elijah elijah and enoch being assumed to heaven but again like it says they were assumed bodily into heaven um but they did not have they they had they had an inherited original sin just as mary did um but anyways i'm going to come back to that um he had mentioned about um in the book of jude about moses and um and the devil contending for the body of or michael and contending with the body of moses um with uh with michael archangel but it doesn't say anything about him being bodily assumed or anything um the other thing about jesus is yes jesus did not sin uh but the bible says that he took on sin which is different than actually inheriting sin because again he is um he is conceived by the holy spirit um unlike mary who is actually conceived in sin um as far as revelation chapter one to six i don't see anything that's in there that talks about mary this is an example of isa jesus and uh known as a typology that's um that's used a lot of times by catholic apologists um i had mentioned about the immaculate conception not being uh declared excathedra because this was before vatican 1 in 1870 that declared that when a pope declares something ex-cathedra you know then it's considered um then it's considered infallible but the immaculate conception was uh declared 15 years or so before that um trent had mentioned about uh mary in her magnificat saying god my savior and he she was referring uh back to to hannah but again this is another argument by exception because even if he's referring back to hannah we have the debate is about how these um dogmas whether or not they're how they're used in scripture and in the new testament the word specific greek word for savior is used about two dozen times and every time that it's used in scripture in the new testament it always refers to god or jesus being a savior of salvation and saving someone from sins which is why i brought up acts chapter 5 and and the epistle of titus and again what i had argued in the opening statement is there any example in the new testament where jesus is referred to as a preemptive savior as opposed to as a redemptive and redeeming savior and and he's not so again argument by exception i mentioned about the word all past all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god um and trent had mentioned about the age of accountability good because you know what if you're unbaptized baby dies and and they're not baptized guess what they go they go into the glory of god so i agree with that as far as original sin if you look at catholic.com the encyclopedia it states that the second council of orange it states that the death of the body which is the punishment for sin in other words sin results in death of the body so if mary died which the dogma the bodily assumption in 1950 strongly implies this demonstrates mary inherited original sin from adam um trent mentioned about about dying once well again this is the exception this is not the rule and and we know this because this is explicitly stated in scripture there's nothing in scripture that states that mary was an exception to this it only states that jesus was an exception to this because he was had a divine nature not a sinful nature as well as a human nature but mary only had a human nature and a sinful nature um trent i made the comment about the word until that's used in second samuel but it uses the word heyos not heyos who same with matthew 28 it uses heyos not heyos who um he mentioned about the septuagint well the septuagint was a greek translation that was established around finished around 134 bc so we're not talking about translations of the bible we're we're talking about what's actually used in the new testament because even the new testament writers would deviate from the septuagint occasionally because they would use a better translation lutheran calvin i would expect that they were both catholic we have to remember that um as far as adelphos i don't have a problem with the word doubtfuls but my question is why would you abandon its primary meaning uh for another translation for another meaning when it doesn't demand it um and my focus was on the word adelphi which trent really didn't uh focus on on his opening statement he might bring it up in his rebuttal um and i'm curious you used a comment about jesus being the son of mary so does that mean that uh mary could have had daughters because it says the son of mary and as far as psalm 69 if you you can finish your thought if you want real quick steve okay and basically psalm 69 if you continue reading it says that um the messiah was taking on the reproach of other people so it's not saying that he died he did exactly what jesus did he became sin for us so i'll leave it at that thank you steve trent whenever you begin i'll click the timer you have seven all right well a lot to cover here let's see how much we can get through um so steve is saying that the word adelfei which means sister it can only mean figurative sister or biological sister so if jesus has adelphae he must have had uh sisters who were born of mary as i said before these could be adoptive siblings uh and steve has not ruled that out and also greek scholars do not rule that out richard bockham for example says the word adelphae who is he's an eminent greek uh new testament scholar need not mean full sister can mean half sister stepsister sister-in-law the greek grammarian bill mounts who writes a whole textbook on ancient greek says that a delphi means sister near kinswoman or female relative um when it comes to jesus who i already showed that in both in the septuagint and also in contemporary literature uh it doesn't it does not require uh a reversal of condition so it can be used here in matthew 125 in this way and i showed that when i cited acts 21 25 and as well as other examples around the same time period steve said that if mary and joseph had remained virgins they would violate saint paul's teaching about marriage in first corinthians 7. that's not true paul offers he says in first corinthians 7 5-7 do not refuse one another except by agreement for a season to devote yourselves to prayer so that you're not tempted by lack of self-control i say this by way of concession not of command i wish that all were as i myself am since mary and joseph uh would have been the most chaste holy family uh this would not apply to them they can live out the gospel teaching in their unique holy family this is something paul gave his concession not as a command to others uh luke 2 7 steve said well look it says here that jesus is the firstborn protacos of mary so that means if you're the firstborn that you're going to have other children well there's pokemon the first movie and it was so bad there were no other movies but it's the first movie um the protestant biblical scholar victor hamilton says to say that jesus is mary's prototypus is simply to say mary had no child before she gave birth to jesus this is a term that refers to the child who opens the womb and it makes sense that luke would use prototypus because the term firstborn is later used in luke 2 22-23 to talk about the purification right and the right of the presenting those who are the first born so he's just talking about this birthright that he mentions about 10 verses later uh now steve says well luke would have used monogamys only begotten no that's not the case luke does use monogames to talk about the death of one's only child for example in different parts of his gospel but in the infancy narrative we're just talking about the birth of the firstborn in accord with the mosaic law and in fact in the old testament only begotten and firstborn are used interchangeably we see this in zechariah 12 10 where it talks about they look on him who they've pursed they shall pierced they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a first born so the terms can both be used interchangeably in that respect i already addressed psalm 65 but steve said well the sins are applied to jesus a non-literal way right but notice what says in psalm 69 5 of the messiah oh god thou knowest my folly the wrongs i have done are not hidden from me but jesus did not do any wrong so my point here is clear if this verse in psalm 69 is applied non-literally to jesus the verse that talks about my mother's sons can also be applied in a non-literal way we see this in psalm 69 25 it says in the plural may their camp be a desolation let no one dwell in their tents this is later applied in acts 120 but not to a group of people to an individual namely judas going forward then mark sorry steve tries to say that mary committed a sin in mark 3 when she and the brothers of the lord go to see him but the text doesn't say anything about mary doing anything sinful jesus does not rebuke her there's no divine judgment on mary in any form uh described here in mark chapter three that's just being read into the text uh when it comes to savior uh i would just challenge steve where does luke 1 46-48 talk about sin it doesn't mention sin there and most commentaries agree that this passage parallels what hannah says in first samuel 2 1 and she likewise doesn't mention sin also this does not he might say that it's unlikely he doesn't accept it but there's no contradiction also if she is thankful to god for being preemptively saved from sin steve may not believe that's what the text says but if it does say that there's there's no contradiction in it saying that um he talked a little about and adam all die but notice here there are exceptions uh enoch and elijah would be an example and notice that steve kept saying you know yeah it says all of sin jesus of course is the exception so then it isn't literally saying every single human has sinned or every man has sinned and he and steve has said well we know there's an exception because the bible says that jesus is the exception so clearly then that means the bible can make universal statements but sources of divine revelation can give us those exceptions steve will point to jesus in sacred scripture i'll point to mary in sacred tradition and there we would just debate about whether sacred tradition is a plausible source of divine revelation of course that is not what we are debating today uh finally the point about mary dying i think steve is really missing this here the fact that mary died does not show that she had original sin or that she inherited richardson or that she committed a personal sin it does not show that all it shows is that she even though she was free from sin she still had human nature and human nature is corrupted and mortal so much the same way jesus was free from original sin and personal sin yet when he was on the cross it's not like the nails couldn't go through his hands because he's free from sin so he's immortal no he was free from sin but he still had a mortal human nature uh that could be subject to death and the same is true for mary so mary being assumed into heaven uh dying which is the the majority view among theologians does not show that she had sin so that the assumption and the immaculate conception are not contradicted in that respect and then hopefully in my next turn i'll be able to address some of the other arguments that steve has raised i think so far this has shown that steve has not been able to apply scripture in an unambiguous way to show the marian dog was contradicted okay thank you very much trent we now are going to have four minute rebuttals then where there's gonna be a time of cross-examination and then uh we're gonna do 30 minutes of q a so to everybody who's watching please stick around i think it says a lot uh about y'all that you would take your time all 735 of you to uh to be here i think that's really terrific so yeah this is awesome this is really great really enjoying this all right steve whenever you begin i let me actually just give me one second i will click the four minute mark okay um as i had mentioned about the greek word adelphae let me remind everyone that this is about what scripture actually teaches and to remind that the septuagint is a translation it is not considered inspired if it was the new testament writers would not deviate from it occasionally and use their own greek translation it's a good greek translation the new testament writers used it but they did not use it universally for that reason and again i what i argued is how a delphi is used consistently in the new testament greek not how it's used in a greek translation of the old testament you would expect there to be deviations from it but even at that the greek word for adelphae in the new in the old testament when it's used it's used even in a translation um not to mean anything other than a biological sister or a believing sister like the sister nations of israel and and judah trent had mentioned about what could mean sister-in-law well the apostle john um actually um quoted from the old testament from the septuagint uh frequently and if he had met sister-in-law such as mary's sister in john chapter 19 he would have utilized the greek word sin that's used in the book of ruth to describe orpah's relationship with ruth um and again just to give an example in the septuagint in the book of sirach which is inspired for trent but it's not inspired for on me it uses the greek word keiker tomeno uh which is a masculine form of kay karatomani when it says uh hail mary full of grace and it's used to describe a man who is full of grace i'm sure trent doesn't think that that man is immaculately conceived because there are those that catholic answers and elsewhere who thinks kay care to me may know our main aid means um that that they were always in a state of grace meaning that mary was sinless uh first corinthians chapter seven again it says for a season in order to separate but then it says so that you go back married couples to go back so you so you do not get tempted by satan be because of your lack of self-control and the fact that trent is saying that this the holy family would not need to apply to that he's imputing his uh catholic theology into the text so let's stick with it scripture actually supports protagonists i don't have a problem with with the term meaning first out of the womb but in luke chapter 2 verses 22 to 23 this is a different event this is a separate event than from what luke is talking about earlier in luke 2 2 chap chapter 2 verse 7. he's simply talking about um jesus being the firstborn and again if he meant a only child uh he would he would have used it like he used uh he would have used monogamys like he used it elsewhere in luke's gospel um mark chapter three uh even though it doesn't explicitly state that these are jesus's um siblings um the greek word literally means to be like of that individual again that's the view of john chrysostom um the word savior is is used consistently in the new testament to refer to a savior of sins and again scripture states because jesus is god is why he would not inherit sin like mary did because mary is not god unless trent is um is going in that direction which i don't think it is uh first corinthians 15 in my opening statement it says that um there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies and people who have earthly bodies are sown perishable meaning corruptible in dishonor meaning contempt reproach mary had this early body and so before she could go into heaven and have a heavenly body she had to be rid of them and that's why the apostle paul says that we were of like adam and we also which includes mary we also are heavenly all right thank you very much steve okay trent whenever you begin i will click your time for all righty oh wow this sure is fun isn't it so it's it's nice to be able to go through all these um even scripture passages though i will say as we're going through them i feel like steve's case is sort of like that uh tree in front of my house to the bush i'm always trying to get just right but i end up clipping so many parts off of it it's just a bunch of empty branches sitting there and so i think what i have shown is that all of these arguments that steve has raised to try to show scripture contradicts the marian dogmas it does no such thing and we've seen that time and time again and so i'm going to address the other examples that he's just raised first when it comes to adelphos and adelfay i think steve would agree with me that in general what that word means in scripture is that you have the same biological mother and father we don't believe that that is the case both of us agree that's not the case for jesus so it must be used in some other way in fact when it is used in the septuagint to talk about people who have different fathers or mothers it is only ever used to describe people when in the case of half siblings of having different fathers not diff you know of having different fathers not different mother sorry let me let me go back a little bit here with this uh the point i want to raise there is that delphi uh has the same semantic range as a del fos it can mean sister of having the same mother and father or of having just the same father or just the same mother we see this in luke 3 1 and if these siblings are jesus's adoptive siblings from joseph's previous marriage there's absolutely no contradiction here whatsoever and i already cited greek scholars like bill mounts and new testament scholars by richard bockham who agree with me that a delphi has a broader semantic range than uh what steve has brought up here i didn't talk about sister-in-law that was citing bachm on that point uh and cinimphos is just not used in the new testament so it's just not a common word we wouldn't expect it uh i didn't bring up kikara to many if you want to go more into that my book the case for catholicism has a chapter on the immaculate conception and i do talk about how much evidence that greek word has for the immaculate conception and i also note in my book its use in the book of sirach so i'm well aware of that go to case for catholicism if you want more but we're not debating whether the bible teaches the immaculate conception we're debating whether scripture contradicts it and that has not been demonstrated here when it comes to savior the word is used in a lot of different ways in the whole of scripture not just in the new testament oth neil in the old testament is described as a savior but not as a savior from sin i agree that it is used predominantly of jesus we are talking about salvation from sin but i would say read the context what is mary talking about in luke 1 she is not mentioning sin in any case so we have to read the context even if it is talking about sin if it's talking about being saved from sin before one came into existence preemptively saved then it still fits the context there's no contradiction there at all first corinthians 15 talks about heavenly bodies uh and that mary is given um i think what she was saying here is that okay well mary had an earthy body she would have to have a heavenly body that's right that just like jesus and mary did not have glorified bodies during jesus did not have his glorified body during his earthly ministry he briefly revealed it on the mount of transfiguration but jesus was not going about in his glory during his earthly ministry he put that on his glorified resurrection body after the resurrection and the same is true for us that mary was free from sin but she still had an earthy body then after being assumed into heaven she would have a glorified body and so it would fulfill the promise in philippians 3 21 that says our bodies lowly bodies will be transformed like his heavenly body christ so once again we've gone through a lot of scripture here but none of them stick and show that the marian dogmas are contradicted by the bible in any way all right thank you very much trent we are going to be moving into a time of cross-examination where each debater will get 10 minutes each but before we do that i want to say thank you to our sponsor hallo click the link in the description below to go through to the greatest catholic prayer and meditation app on the planet my wife and i literally was listen we're listening to scott hahn reading the book of romans as we were going to sleep last night the night before that we did an examination of conscience together this is the number one downloaded catholic app in the app store and it is the best app i've ever used ever not just saying that because they're paying me although that definitely helps hello.com mattfradd click the link in the description below just today hello uploaded my lo-fi music to their app many of you know i now have a catholic lo-fi channel click it uh type it in it'll change your life no doubt so that's all up there as well so if you go to hello.comfred right now click that link in the description below you'll get three month a three month trial so you can use the app for three months before deciding whether it's worth your time and money i think it will be hello.com slash mattfradd hello.com mattfradd now someone pointed out in the chat that only what is it 65 percent of people have submitted to my regality um we still look we got 737 people watching and only 492 likes what what am i to do with this after all i've done for you and you just sit there you watch this you don't click that thumbs up button i'm trying to appeal to to catholic guilt but it's not working uh okay so now we're gonna move into 10 minute rebuttals uh we'll start with you steve you've got 10 minutes to cross examine trent and just so everybody knows you're welcome to interrupt him or move the conversation along as you see fit and you just so people are aware aren't being mean or anything by doing that that's just how debates work so whenever you want to begin i will click the 10 minute button okay trent in your recent podcast rebutting ray comfort you said jesus is the only person referred to as the son of mary so uh in mark chapter 1 verse 19 it says james is the son of zebedee and he uses the greek uh definite article so does this mean that james was zebedee's only son no i'm not saying that the use of the definite article means that mary had only one child uh my point in that it's it's not the definite article that is interesting the son of mary even a son of mary would be interesting rather it's the fact that jesus is referred through a a metronym rather than a patronym that normally in the ancient near east you would refer to someone as the son of their father the son of joseph okay okay i get that so so then jesus was referred to as the carpenter's son and it's a patron nym would this eliminate his brothers being older step brothers according to the proto-evangelium of james no bockham talks about this in his article that in some contexts uh jesus would be referred to as the son of joseph especially among those who were not familiar with his family life in nazareth he's referred to the son of joseph in john's gospel but it's the term so he would be referred to the son of joseph sometimes but those who knew the family why he is called the son of mary is interesting and a good explanation is that he was born of mary and that mary was joseph's second wife uh it's not i'm not saying that's the required view but it's a quite plausible one so since jacob is referred to as the son of isaac and reuben as the son of jacob then were they only children the only son no i don't think you're following my point i'm not saying that jesus is the son of mary means that she's the only person he bore i'm just saying that that shows that joseph had other um had otherwise that joseph had other children who were from other women just like when we see in the beginning of matthew's gospel talking about adelphos is used of jacob's siblings the children of jacob who were born from different women leia and rachel okay um let's see in catholic answers encyclopedia it ref says that andrew is the brother of peter i or andrew the brother of peter is also called the son of jonah uh how do we know this from the new testament you mean the son of john son of jonah john and john yeah okay i i'm not sure with your questions like how do we know andrew and peter are brothers yeah how do we know that they're that they're brothers how do we how do we know they're brothers uh well it uses the greek word for brother uh how do we know that andrew is also the son of jonah because that's what the catholic answers encyclopedia states because the the word adelphae uh would imply that they you know it's normal used to be that you have the same parents at least one of the same parents it is i mean it's quite possible they're born of different mothers but there's no evidence for us to to pursue that route so we could assume that they have the same biological mother and father but once again we wouldn't assume go ahead so if if he's if andrew is jonah's son too because andrew is the brother of peter then why can't james the brother of jesus also be the son of mary well in your example it's talking about father so i would say that james and joseph are also the son of the sons of joseph they would be sons from another marriage so it still fits semantically okay um let's see when mary said i know not man luke uh 134 does this indicate a vow of perpetual virginity um yeah i think there is good reason to believe that uh but that's not what we're debating today well well well it is an argument that actually i hear from a lot of contemporary catholic apologies um so in in the septuagint genesis 19 9 lot's daughters use the same greek word i know not man so were they uh engaged in a vow of perpetual virginity i'm not sure that that is the um uh in genesis are you talking 199 are you talking about 19 probably later after the destruction of sodom and gomorrah when they are i know not oh the ones that have not known a man i i i not know i know not man it's the same greek words that mary says when she says i know not man uh i don't know i wouldn't assume that that involves a vow of virginity uh but i think there's a different context in relation to the fact that we have betrothal between mary and joseph that it's an odd construction mary and joseph are perfectly free to have children i'm not sure why she would be surprised when told that she's going to have a son given that under jewish law she and joseph were free to engage in conjugal relations even after you know even right at that moment left so it's different to examine but that's not what we're debating whether scripture teaches it okay so uh two part or multi-part question here if mary was immaculately conceived why would joseph and her kids folk who knew her think that her pregnancy was a result of adultery uh well uh those the kinsfolk you can have relatives that don't know very much about you or misunderstand you jesus's kin in nazareth did not fully understand his status as the messiah many of them did not believe in him the question for joseph okay how about mary's parents and joseph who is from the same tribe who she was betrothed to that she was conceived uh without original sin well why would i believe that mary's parents yeah when they have noticed that that their child up to the age of 12 or 13 however she was that she had not committed a single sin uh the proto-evangelium of james does talk about mary uh being very mature for her age walking at an early age for example and being precocious uh and then she was placed in the in to be serving within the temple uh so at an early age i think about around age three so they prob they probably were aware of something very special about her at that time so there's nothing in scripture that contradicts that so so so a child uh that age um you think it's realistic that that in the condition that they were brought up that they could that mary could have um never committed a sin especially as a child i believe all things are possible with god yeah okay um why was she shocked um about the annunciation if she was immaculately conceived wouldn't she have known that she was um the the virgin from isaiah 7 14 well not necessarily uh even if if god had given you special graces so that you could follow his law it wouldn't follow that god was also calling you to do something unprecedented in salvation history like to give birth to the messiah no one else ever before in the history of salvation had been asked to do something like that so it is quite shocking can you give one example in the new testament where it describes god or jesus being a preemptive savior instead of a redemptive redeeming savior uh saving you're talking about saving someone giving someone salvation prior to their sins yeah can you name one verse in the where either god or jesus is described that way in the new testament um no i don't i think i can think of anything like that but i would say that mary's status as being the god-bearer would mean there'd be many truths that are quite unique to her that we don't find in either old or new testament would you agree with gerrymandering that the assumption of mary was an eyewitness account just as jesus ascension was uh i don't know if i would if it was an eyewitness account i suppose someone would had to have been informed about that perhaps uh john witnessed this event and then told others or this may have been given to john through some other kind of revelation i don't know if i could answer the question definitively okay that's fair um so if if so if it was an eyewitness account why hasn't the catholic church dogmatically declared whether or not she died first because the details about whether she died or not have not been given to us in the deposit of faith that particular fact has not has not been given to us that's why there are diverging traditions on whether mary died or not but you don't find the first denial of mary's assumption until in the late early middle ages that seems to be something that went without contention since since um the catholic church is certain that uh the brothers of jesus are anything other than biological siblings meaning uterine siblings why are they not able to be just as certain specifically who they are why is there disagreement between relatives older stepbrothers cousins etc because once again not every truth of the faith not every truth about first century life for example has been handed down to us as i mentioned in my book the case for catholicism paul's letter to the thessalonians he talks about the force restraining the man of lawlessness and he told the thessalonians who that was but we don't know who that was biblical scholars have had many different answers and we don't know much the same this particular truth about uh whether mary died or not uh that has not been handed down to us but that she was assumed into heaven was even though ain't gone all right that sums it up um trent you have 10 minutes to cross examine steve whenever you begin okay uh let's take a look here so steve we agree um and i didn't mean to bring that up in any kind of i'm sorry to start this i didn't mean to bring up the dogma of theotokos mother of god in any kind of underhanded way or way to go against our previous agreement because when people hear marion dogmas they think of the four of them right so i think it's important that each of us some you know we don't have a problem with we might have problem with how to apply it but the basic level mother of god isn't contradicted by scripture agreed as long as the difference is uh the difference between mariological title versus christological title that's probably where we would disagree but go ahead sure uh does the bible ever say mary was not assumed into heaven no it doesn't say that but it doesn't say joseph was bodily assumed into heaven and the same three dogmas could apply to joseph as well but we don't think but why is there not a dog those dogmas apply to joseph so you're just gonna agree it does not say it does not deny mary was assumed into heaven well i would say that it contradicts it because if she was indeed sinless um mary would not have been a bodily assumed into heaven for the reasons i stated in my opening statement if she were sinless what would what would happen to her because there would be no reason to rescue for her from death because the purpose of a bodily assumption into heaven is so an individual would not see death if she was immaculately conceived she would not have bodily assumed needed to be rescued from death because that's the purpose of assumption which we see from enoch and elijah uh that's the purpose of of their assumptions but let me get to that point about death though uh can a [Music] person with a human nature die even if they are free from sin can a person die well according to genesis chapter in genesis it says in that day you will surely die and my contention is that if adam had not uh had not fallen and inherited original sin he would not have died okay so was jesus free from sin and he also died jesus became sin that's why he died he was put on he was put on the cross so there was something sinful about jesus no he became sin the second corinthians um is it's clear god made him who knew no sin to become sin for us and i i could talk about what that verse means in a lot of different contexts what is the difference between be having being sinful and becoming sin being sinful is saying that you have inherited original sin and becoming sin means that uh sin was imputed to you this is known as all right let me let me ask you this was jesus christ free from sin jesus christ did not inherit original sin but he became sin which is why the father had to turn away from him okay and so that so that's why he why he died yes uh all right you said something about that mary was able to do something that jesus didn't she didn't become sin either according to roman catholicism okay um let's see here uh i think that what we're we're we're quibbling a little bit here on the assumption i think we actually have more things we agree on unless uh let's talk about let's talk about the perpetual virginity of mary so uh does the bible say mary gave birth to anyone besides jesus there's a lot of people in scripture including joseph that doesn't say anything that she gave birth to anybody but you know that he did others that he didn't give birth to older steps siblings of jesus so that's an argument from silence and you that's fine is are you going to answer the question did does it describe her giving birth to anyone else or say she gave birth to anyone else well the answer to the question needs to be in relation to applying it elsewhere in scripture because there's a lot of people that are mentioned in scripture that doesn't say that they had any children and we can actually discern from others passages in scripture that jesus brothers are his biological younger half siblings okay uh so is this is this your view jesus and his siblings have the same mother but they have different fathers yes because they're uh jesus's younger half sibling was joseph while jesus's father was god okay where in the bible is the greek word adelphos used to describe uh siblings having the same mother but different fathers the word for adelphas is used uh numerous times in both the old and the new testament to describe uh people who have had the same parents i mean focusing on on um it's saying that they had the same mothers is a little bit of a straw man because because that's an argument that you're using which i feel is really irrelevant because you could use the argument that um jesus had younger half sisters because there's nothing in that passage to eliminate that possibility okay so i'm gonna ask the question again and see if you'll answer it uh your view is that the word adelphos what it means in the brethren is that it's talking about jesus and his siblings they have the same mother but they have different fathers now in the septuagint as well as in the new testament adelphos is used to talk about people who have the same father but different mothers i'm just asking is there an example where you're you where is there an example of anywhere in scripture where it's used to describe siblings they have the same mother but they have different fathers it sounds like you're using it for your view of jesus in a very unique way um i would have to look through the whole old testament because the word brothers is used quite a bit of time so it so as far as i know i don't know offhand but that doesn't mean that it's not being used and even if it wasn't i don't see the relevance to it the the relevance would be that you're using it well the relevance is the fact that the word adelphos for brother the primary meaning means a biological sibling so unless there's a reason okay adelphos is the primary meaning of adelphos that you have the same biological mother and father two individuals share the same biological mother and father the primary meaning of the word a devils could either refer to the having the same biological mother or father it can also refer to half said a half half sibling as well such as in the old testament the word for brother is used to refer to ruben as being the brother of his half brothers because they have the same uh father but different mothers but it but it doesn't demand for that though it doesn't explicitly state that is the right so that's why so then the word so then the word adelphos could also apply in this case to describe people that they have uh the same adoptive father joseph but different mothers joseph's first wife and his second wife can it be used case without contradicting scripture is not my issue i mean actually you and i would agree on this my my my argument is how the word adele faith specifically is used in the new testament greek i don't have a problem with the word of delphi that was never my argument it's okay so for an ancient greek speaking person why would a delphi have a narrower semantic range than adelphos when the only difference here is the gender why would this be the case because if you look in um strong's greek exhaustive concordance and how it is used in the new testament which is what this debate is about not extra biblical work it is used consistently and only to describe biological siblings uh which and remember this this is this is the focus of our debate how it's used in scripture well right but when we look at something like strong's for example uh are you aware that strong's defines adelphos and adelphe the same way for example strong's 80 are you aware that it describes adelphos it says a brother a member of the same religious community a fellow christian but here strong says brother but that could also mean half brother right oh absolutely and then it says when you refer to a delphi when you look that up it only has two meanings it refers to a natural sister as well or a violence i'm running out of time so i've got two more questions here um so the protestant the protestant reformers like luther and zwingli beli did they believe mary was a perpetual virgin and were they committed to solo scriptura uh they were committed to solo scripture but we also have to remember that even though they were reformers they were also roman catholics and their issue with rome was not about marion dogmas it was about the authority of scripture over the authority of the church and they did not want people following them they wanted people following scripture even if they were wrong okay did they think that there was anything unbiblical about mary being ever virgin um they as roman catholics because mary was not an issue they didn't have a problem with her being um a perpetual virgin and and i believe calvin was kind of on the fence about it but so it's it's irrelevant because you're a catholic uh did they believe every catholic truth uh did the reformers believe every catholic church truth no because because their issue with rome was about the sole authority of scripture over the sole authority of the church their issue is not about mary did they believe that the marian did they believe mary's at well we're out of time go ahead please finish go ahead let's do one final question yeah did they did they believe that the doctrine of mary's perpetual virginity violated the authority of scripture yes and as a and again as a roman catholic i would expect them to because their issue is not about mary their issue is about the authority of the church so i it's it's irrelevant all right we we're going to move into a time 30 minutes of q a um massive thanks to those who support us at locals and on patreon we're gonna be taking those questions i think it might be best if i just go back and forth so like one question for steve and he answers then i'll do a question for trent if you guys could try to keep your answers to about two minutes each some of these questions are for both of you um but it might be better if i ask a question just one of you responds since we have so many okay so this first question is for both of you we'll start with trent and then steve this comes from esteban he says for trent which marian dogma was or is the hardest for you to accept you answer that and then i'll ask steve the next question well uh in my own um personal journey of faith i think i had some difficulties with the immaculate conception of mary and mary's bodily assumption but i think i was able to move through those difficulties uh by broadening my understanding of what is the ultimate source of authority uh for christians uh that it's not sola scriptura because the bible itself doesn't even teach that and so moving from that that if jesus christ did establish the church if i'm confident of that and in its teaching authority then i can be confident in what the pope teaches about mary in regards to those two dogmas uh and but i can especially have confidence knowing that what is taught does not contradict scripture and so if it doesn't contradict scripture then it should be an issue between catholics and protestants of secondary importance much like how people disagree about infant baptism uh even though it they'll say that i don't believe it but steve might say it doesn't contradict scripture necessarily okay so this next question is for you steve i think you've already said to some degree you're okay kind of referring to mary as the mother of god so maybe you could focus on the other three which obviously you disagree with all the these three marian dogmas but which do you think would be the easiest for you to get on board with oh wow um that's kind of hard i i i have to respond uh individually i mean because honestly i believe that all three do contradict all of them probably believe it or not the bodily assumption only because there's nothing in scripture that even alludes to her death it doesn't allude to what happened the end of her life which was the which he would even epiphanies islamists stated that um nobody knows what happened to mary at the end of her life which demonstrates there was no eyewitness so probably honestly that one um as far as jesus's brothers and sisters i probably have studied that more than anything else and i just that that would probably be the hardest for me to accept and um mary being or maybe mary being sinless because i just i mean trent you got a seven-year-old that it's like a is as good as a kid as he is based on um who his parents are i'm throwing you a bone here and i truly believe that because you're a nice guy i like you trent um if if any if anything like the p the parents he's a good kid but i can't imagine by the age of seven that his oldest child hasn't sinned one time and i can honestly say the same thing about mary especially with the oppression of rome and and the the jews especially um especially after jesus was born so i don't know if that answers a question but probably the bottle yeah that's fine okay thank you all right so this question is for steve and this comes from kevin who's a local supporter he says this is a question for steve how do you understand luke 1 28's title for mary as full of grace in the greek literally meaning something like having been made completely full in regards to the immaculate conception thanks sure i addressed this a little bit during the debate to the specific greek word kaycare tomani which is translated full of grace or highly favored um even jimmy akin from catholic answers that even trent has argued that um the the word does not mean uh to be immaculately conceived you know it doesn't even imply that and again in syric chapter 18 i think it's verse 17 in the septuagint uses this same greek word but in the masculine to refer to a man being uh full of grace this k character may know um so and obviously trenton i would agree that it doesn't mean that way and and as jimmy aiken has pointed out um if mary needed to be um sinless in order to give birth to the messiah then her mother would have to be sinless and her mother would have to be sinless all the way back um to to eve and you know and so it just it doesn't work i mean it it doesn't it doesn't prove it's not a good proof text to use this next question is well oh can i have a sure that's fine just keep it keep it shorter than his response yeah sure and what i would say here is that i agree that the use of kakarot to mene in luke 128 does not prove the doctrine of the immaculate conception i think it provides strong evidence for it i do talk about this in my book and there i note that it's used differently than in sirach 1817 where the word is also used in the septuagint in luke 1 28 the angel uses it as a descriptor of mary within a personal address similar to how john the baptist used the lamb of god to speak about jesus and that talks about the significance there the fact that this is used of mary is very unusual a protestant scholar craig keener says neither the title favored or graced one nor the promised lord is with you was traditional in greetings even if a person had been of status so i think that that is highly significant there's something very very special about mary in the way that it's used along with the words definition can i quickly quickly yeah but sure but let's have this be the last response to a response because then i'm going to ask trent a question then you're going to get to respond to that yeah well the thing is in both cases in the septuagint and in luke's gospel they're both in the perfect passive participle so they're being used the same way and i would also address that luke actually specifically states that it is a salutation that's all it is that's all i wanted to say this this is hard isn't it because i know every one of these points you could go back and forth on a lot but let's let's try to keep it just the main response and then a response to the response so this question is for trent this comes from supporter matt he says it's a good question i think a lot of people have this question both catholics and protestants at what point does marian devotion or veneration turn into idolatry like for example how does one reconcile the following statements i am the way the truth and the life from our blessed lord in john 14 6 and hail holy queen mother of mercy our life our sweetness now hope emphasis on both claiming to be our life so when does marion devotion turn into idolatry sure so idolatry according to the catechism in paragraph 2113 says idolatry consists in divinizing what is not god a man commits idolatry when he honors and reveres a creature in place of god but that doesn't mean that we can't show veneration and respect towards the things that god has made and those people who have cooperated with god in salvation history so when it comes to mary idolatry would occur if we were to give mary worship that is due to god alone a concrete example of this would be sacrifice offering a sacrifice to mary would be inappropriate in fact in the early church it would be idolatry in the early church there was a heretical sect called the choleridians and epiphanius uh condemns them and they talks about how they offered cakes on altars to mary but the only thing we should offer on an altar is the body and blood of jesus christ the lamb of god that he has given to us at calvary we should only offer that to the father and the holy sacrifice of the mass so offering sacrifices to mary would be idolatry uh worshiping mary as if uh you know she takes the place of god and is the one who uh soul you know secures our uh salvation as if she died on the cross or something like that we must be careful of course that in marian devotion sometimes people use very flowery language um that they don't necessarily shouldn't necessarily be taken literally because they they love mary as the mother of god who leads us to her son i would stress that we look at what the church teaches and its magisterial teachings about mary and her important role in salvation but even saint louis de montfort who uses very lofty language of mary says of her that she is but one atom in comparison to the infinite and majestic glory that is god so i think catholics have a way to honor mary as the mother of god without uh divinizing her your response steve yeah i i think i want to comment on hold on okay i want to comment on his use of the word veneration um in the darby translation of the new testament uh we're in second thessalonians chapter two and it talks about uh worshiping um images and worshiping you know idols it actually uses the word veneration and it literally means it literally can be translated worship and so i'm not saying that that catholics are actively worshiping mary or statues of mary but we have to be careful with the word veneration it's it's a word that really should be used strictly for um for god and of course we can get into the whole latria and dulia argument but that's not what this debate is actually about um and the other issue is the fact is that even though um a pope would not be allowed to declare something that goes against what the magisterium teaches in the magisterium i doubt would ever teach about worshipping mary um what's interesting is that um according to lumenjinchim it says that uh even when a uh the pope is not speaking ex cathedra you must you you must actually listen to what the pope says and this was a dogmatic constitution of the church by pope paul vi and he went on to say that muslims and and and um and christians worship the same god when in fact they don't because the christian god is jesus and the muslim god is is allah and it's not jesus and i'd like my i like my little mini rebuttal very quick points matt uh that is a topic for another debate and we've also addressed that frequently at catholic.com so our listeners can go there to read that and number two when it comes to veneration worship honor give someone the respect that they do i i would give this analogy to my protestant brothers and sisters uh suppose we discovered the actual cross jesus had been crucified on we discovered it carbon dated it that's the cross jesus died on how would you treat that thing probably not like any other piece of wood i bet you would maybe you would kneel before it in prayer you would weep to see that through this means our salvation was procured some people might even accuse you of idolatry but so my point would be that if we would show that devotion to the means through which jesus died why wouldn't we show that similar devotion to the means by which jesus was born fair enough steve's shaking his head no but we'll leave it at that for now this next question um comes from mcat 1977. thanks for being a supporter mate he says this is for oh hell i have to give one to yeah to steve given that the church both east and west had access to the same scriptures scriptures as us and were closer to the time of the apostles how do you justify the church being in error for so long on a number of the marian doctrines well first of all i would say that i disagree with trent uh as a catholic as how you define the word church that when roman catholicism a church is defined uh specifically as the pope of the magisterium and then when you get baptized in the church you become part of that rather biblically the church is every individual sinner who god has redeemed out of the world to be a slave uh to our master and lord jesus christ every individual sinner um so that so i don't believe that the church in the biblical sense has been an error all that time and if you look into church history um these dogmas were not all agreed upon the last one to be accepted was um was the bodily assumption of mary and if you take a look at the origin of all three of these dogmas they all come from either gnostic-like text or apocryphal literature or pseudopigraphal literature like the proto-evangelium of james and elsewhere so i would actually disagree with a cardinal newman to be deep into history as the cease to be protestant i actually had the opposite uh situation and as i began to study scripture more in depth i found to be deep into the bible to cease to become catholic trent i would say that steve's comment well i don't think the the church is just a collection of believers and i don't think that the church ceased to exist those are both problematic matthew 18 17 says jesus says if a person who sins against you refuses to listen to you or two or three witnesses tell it to the church and it seems to envision the church as having some kind of authoritative structure and not simply as the invisible bond between all believers i would say the church subsists in the catholic church though other non-catholic christians have an imperfect communion with the church that would be one number two is when steve said well you know i don't think the church died off you know there's there's more to it than that i would challenge em who would i would ask him this question you can answer it now or some other venue who was the first christian like author father theologian who held to the same theology that steve does uh who was the first person you could say yup that was essential that that's my theology i agree with what that person teaches that's what i believe uh even if you have to have some things in essential form i think he would have to pick someone pretty late in church history at least over a thousand or 1500 years or 1800 years and if that's the case i think he'd have to say there really wasn't a church before that if he can't find someone prior to that to say yeah that person believed essentially what i believe i don't think he could do that sounds like you're posing the question to you steve so feel free to answer that briefly and it'll be really quick i mean to quote jimmy akin um when he was asked all the early church fathers agree he says boy did they not all agree so they were there was a lot that the early church disa agreed on and there was things that they agreed on things that trent would agree on and there's things that they agreed on that that i would actually believe in and and this may and so to say who believed the exact same way that that i believed but when you look into church history it's kind of hard to answer that question because even trent cannot um say about somebody that agreed exactly the way that that he does i mean today there are roman catholics at about 70 percent of american catholics i guess substantiation let me finish and so and so this may not satisfy trent's um answer and he might kind of smirk a little bit about that but i'd say the probably the first theologian to agree with me is the apostle paul i guess after the new testament i guess here's a fun question which of the church fathers would you be okay with preaching at your church i would be i would love to have augustine or aquinas come down to my parish and give a talk or be a pastor there um i don't know i don't know how you would feel which church father would you want to preach at your church i'm surprised that you would pick aquinas since he did not believe in the immaculate conception of mary um unlike mary nobody's perfect jesuses um but uh among human persons i mean i mean to be to be fun he was human to be to be i mean just for fun i mean i would probably enjoy listening to ignatius i'd probably enjoy polycarp i would probably enjoy um comet of rome even though first clement wasn't written by an individual but rather there was a a poly group of of bishops you know in in first clement but i mean i was some some of the early ones i'd probably um definitely not judas iscariot okay okay this question is for steve from super chat me gentle v o l p uh he says steve psalm 132 8 says arise lord and come to your resting place you and the ark of your might can you describe the ark yes it's referring back to ii samuel when it's talking about the ark be moved to jerusalem this is an example of isis called the isis jesus of scripture it has nothing to do with mary being the mark as a matter of fact if you want to immediately after this debate i made two videos on one of them is about the false typologies that are used by contemporary catholic apologists in order to justify mary being the new ark and i ex and i'm going to explain don't go to it now wait till after the debate but if you want to go there now it's it's it's about that and i also have a a video about seven popes that and possibly eight popes that that uh um did not believe in in the immaculate conception of mary it's on my youtube channel born again rn shameless plug yeah now steve if you want to give me the links to those over email i'll be sure to put them in the description below so people can easily find them yes and i also have a video about protestant inconsistent use of typology where protestants have no problem even seeing very rough connections typologically to jesus in the old testament but then apply a much harsher standard when those same typological connections or better ones uh show mary in the old testament so i'll send you a link you can put that up as well sounds good okay this question comes from agoy for jesus thanks for the super chat he says trent the pro proclamation on mary's immaculate conception says that the fathers unanimously believed that which is false can a conclusion be infallible if the underlying logic is false i don't have the context for this question that's all i got i think and by the way hi jeff good just good to hear from you again if you guys want i just had a dialogue with steve and jeff on their channel it's also a mirrored on my channel you can go and check that out i believe he's referring to uh part of a declaration in in ephebus uh the the declaration about the immaculate conception made by the pope in 1854 saying that the fathers had always believed this about um mary being immaculately conceived uh what the church teaches is that infallibility does not cover uh preambles or evidences that are used to formulate a doctrine uh there might be historical errors for example in some magisterial documents talking about the history of a doctrine whether a certain saint or father believed x y or z infallibility has a narrow sense and only covers what is specifically defined and in this case infallibility would only cover the definition that mary was free from uh was conceived uh free from original sin and free from sin or entire life otherwise things leading up to it uh we could interpret them either in a broader sense it's not necessarily saying every single father affirms something since steve said you won't necessarily get them all affirming something they don't write on everything uh it has to be interpreted charitably or it's possible there might be an error in a magisterial statement recounting history but that doesn't but that doesn't apply the charism to the doctrine itself just like that scripture includes things within it that are not necessarily um scientifically accurate scripture is without error but when the bible talks about a firmament that talks about an ancient incorrect view of the heavens but that doesn't take away from what inerrancy is about which is scripture's specific affirmations related to what it affirms steve um yeah i'm a little disturbed by about the comment about anything in scripture being in error because if we can't trust that we cannot trust that when it says about jesus being our savior and rising from the dead um can you repeat the question real quick do you still have it sure yep it comes from a for jesus who i'm now beginning to assume is your co-laborer i'm not sure do you know him do you yeah the proclamation on mary's immaculate conception says that the fathers unanimously believe that which is false can a conclusion be infallible if the underlying logic is false yeah and see here's the thing there's in the declaration on the specific dogma the immaculate conception of mary there's absolutely nothing in the dogma itself that says anything that this part is infallible and something else that the pope says in the declaration is is not infallible you know and um the other concern again that i have uh is from lumen gentian which is a dogmatic constitution of the church that it is binding to catholics that even if the roman pontiff does not speak ex cathedra it is binding you know so and the issue too is um it talks about uh it it discusses the word ipsum as opposed to ipsa when it says she from genesis 15 if uh she will uh bruise the heel or or or or or he or his heel will be burst however it's actually worded um this is actually based on um jerome's incorrect translation where he used the word ipsa for she uh rather than the corrected translation which is ipsum for he which is actually supported in romans chapter 16 when it says jesus is is the prince um who's whose heel would be bruised yeah okay so my well i like my my quick mini rebuttal the in an effortless deuce where immaculate conception is defined the word unanimously appears once and it's talking about the opinion of the fathers of the most glorious virgin uh being an unspeakable miracle of god and being the mother of god um and i think that's something that we do find uh mary's special unique status and her being mother of god is something throughout the father's definitely also from this as well as other dogmas when you go back to it you you find a lot of these dogmas originating in apocalyptic literature so this question comes from mitchell godfrey and i'm going to kind of just change his question a little because he said he's not going to be watching live so some of this has been answered but he he he seems like he's asking like could a protestant accept some of these marian dogmas and remain a protestant and someone that you would fellowship with so for example if a protestant listens to today's debate and agrees with trent and calvin and luther that mary didn't have children could he still in your view be a good protestant christian trent do you want to start do you want me to answer that first that's for you steve what's for me okay all right okay um yeah and trent i actually talked a little bit about this about you know essentials versus non-essentials of the faith and it all goes down to the authority of scripture now uh because there i would argue that the dogmas are not explicitly mentioned in scripture and they do not affect salvation a person could be a protestant because we have to understand what a protestant is and we have to go back to the reformation for that and in the reformation uh the the two doctrines that came out of it was sola scriptura and solafide and if that is your authority um that's what makes you a protestant and we have to ask yourself is there anything in the bible that states that um you have to be in order to be saved you have to believe in these dogmas no it doesn't it just means somebody is wrong whether it be me or another person who calls themselves prana that protestant that accepts these things but if their authority is a roman catholic church and the man is and is the magisterium then it becomes an authority issue because then you're um because then then you're um submitting to an authority that is also teaching something different about salvation that has nothing to do with these dogmas yeah i would say that this is a really important question and one for us to look at that for protestants and catholics to have dialogue with one another and to get closer to the truth uh i think it's huge to be able to move from and what this debate is about is about do these beliefs contradict scripture now i think steve would probably say that there can be protestants who believe things that scripture is kind of silent about like infant baptism should we baptize babies or not protestants disagree so i think that is kind of a salvation issue actually but they disagree about that because scripture doesn't at least infant baptism for many protestants at least it doesn't contradict scripture even if scripture is silent on the matter and so i would say if you're a protestant for protestant catholics if the marian dogmas can occupy at least that kind of place well you know scripture seems silent on the matter not resolved but uh at least it doesn't contradict scripture then i would say we should treat the marian dogmas like if you're a protestant anything else you might disagree with like infant baptism the cessation of charismatic gifts for example and one little historical note so that people there's a bit of a myth here calvin did not believe in the perpetual virginity of mary he rejected that dogma though he did not believe matthew 1 25 proved it they also didn't believe in the dogma either luther and zwingli though probably did they did believe that mary was ever virgin so just a historical note for everybody watching yeah that's good for me too thanks for correcting me on that trent i was i was wrong there okay here's a question that i have that i'd be interested in both of you you answering and maybe we can go to trent and then steve so trent what are some arguments that you hear catholics put forth for any of the dogmas we're discussing today that you wish they would stop putting forth because they're bad arguments and then steve you know because steve i can tell that you've really wrestled with what catholicism teaches and i really appreciate that you're arguing against catholicism based on what she teaches right so my question for you then would be what are some objections you hear from protestants that when you hear them you think oh goodness like you don't even understand the catholic position so starting with trent yeah well what's interesting is that steve actually had very good objections to some of these arguments he offered them in in the debate they weren't arguments that i made but there are arguments that other people have made um so for example i think steve is right that the use of the word kikara tomene in luke 128 does not in and of itself prove the immaculate conception it would be an evidence chip if you will for for it that we have to balance with other evidences uh other arguments i think are bad the claim that mary had to be immaculately conceived because jesus could not be conceived within a woman who is sinful by that argument saint anne would also have to be immaculately conceived the claim that mary did not give birth to other children because jesus is called the son of mary i do believe that that's good evidence that uh jesus that mary was joseph's second wife at least that's my personal view but that doesn't prove that jesus didn't that mary didn't give birth to others because you could say well solomon is the son of david but david had many other children besides solomon so that's also a a bad argument um yeah so there's there's lots of bad arguments i thought about it here's one trent i don't like and i wonder what you think about it when i've seen people in the chat say things like wouldn't you make your mother perfect i don't like that argument i just think well yeah i'd also want to make my foster father perfect and i'd probably want to make the the peter the rock of the church yes here's my thought on that um so this would be an argument saying that it is fitting therefore it is true and i think that in general those arguments aren't very strong but in some cases saying that something is fitting um can point us in that direction for example we could ask the question were the apostles baptized because i believe that i think steve would agree baptism is at least an ordinance we ought to carry out we ought to do it the bible doesn't say that apostles are baptized but it certainly seems quite fitting that they would be given everything else so the the idea that it's fitting that mary be immaculately conceived it pushes the dial a little but it's by no means a proof um there is an article i might share this soon by a catholic philosopher jack mulder who where he talks about it would be fitting mary being immaculately conceived it's fitting and may be required because that way mary is perfectly able to consent to to become pregnant with our savior i can't go into that in detail here in the answer but i might talk about it in a future podcast episode so that's another one it is fitting therefore it's true might give you a slight nudge in the direction but by no means a full proof okay and then steve what are some objections you hear from protestants to catholics that you don't think are good [Applause] yeah no no no i mean it kind of got me on the spot on me i have to really think about that um i mean aside from the dogmas i think one of the ones that kind of make me cringe is that um that that that catholics worship mary where every time i hear that i'm like you know and i brought it up but i explained the the i came about it through it through a different way um i i have to say maybe and trent kind of brought this up in the debate um when it says that that talks about the the brothers and sisters of jesus and and using adelpho a delphi uh you know to mean that it always means biological brother and trenton i would agree that doesn't mean in fact that wasn't even an argument you know and that's why when the adelphae wrote you know and why i argued how is it used specifically in the new testament you know so i would actually tell people to focus more on that um honestly i'd have to think about it it's like because no problem i try not to use those arguments yeah no fair enough i kind of put you on the spot with that so that's no worries okay we're going to move into a time of closing statements steve you're going to go first with five minutes and then trent to take your time there steve getting yourself ready and then whenever you're whenever you start speaking i'll click the time okay give me a second here okay we got five minutes right yes correct five minutes all right no rush no rush we're good is often said in order to detect a counterfeit bill you don't study other counterfeit bills but instead you first study the genuine thing then you will be able to detect a counterfeit easily as christian evangelist and author mike gentron wrote quote the most deceptive counterfeit is the one that most resembles the genuine article the same is true with detecting a counterfeit mary by first studying the genuine mary of god breathe scripture which does not teach these much later roman catholic dogmas but just the opposite that she was past tense the virgin mother of our lord who redeemed and delivered her from her sins and who died and will be future tense bodily resurrected when jesus comes to catch up as church it is because of my tremendous love and respect for the mary of god breathe scripture that i felt the responsibility to point out that the mary of roman catholism is not the same as the mary of the word of god rather this counterfeit mary developed over several centuries based on false typologies which conflict with scripture no different than what mormons jehovah's witnesses and muslims have done with jesus aaron frederick one of my youtube subscribers rightly observed quote in a courtroom evidence that is thrown out or dismissed by a court cannot be used to find a verdict the same in any intellectual study what is pure fiction cannot be used as factual evidences and it is from the pure fiction of the proto-evangelium of james odessa solomon the ascension of isaiah the transcendence of pseudomolito and other false gospels and apocryphal literature some attached with anathema's by early popes for entertaining these works without suffering the marrying dogmas from them are where these much much later marian dog was developed from and later forced into the text which would have been foreign to the biblical writers influence influenced early on by early monasticism asceticism and even gnostic-like texts early roman catholics were troubled by how a created sinful fallen creature went on to have other children and could give birth to the sinless son of god in the flesh these later marian developments were not like orthodox dogmas and doctrines of christ that developed such as his divinity his dual natures and wills and the trinity whose concepts are unmistakably spelled out in scripture either explicitly or implicitly scripture reveals mary was a virgin but conflicts with her being a perpetual virgin mary did not need to be immaculately conceived since sin is not a trait that is passed down physically but a spiritual condition mary also did not need to be bodily assumed to heaven like enoch and elijah so they quote would not see death supported by the earliest church tradition indirectly supported by scripture and strongly implied by the dogma itself the importance of discussing these myriad dogmas is more than merely to debate them it is a matter of which authority are you willing to submit to the infallible authority of scripture versus the fallible self-proclaimed authority of the magisterium which demands a faithful catholic to believe these dogmas threatening them with excommunication for denying them despite all of them contradicting scripture as trent horn shared with matt fred on sips with aquinas ooh quote the immaculate conception should we dogmatize should we not it is going to go back to what you believe about the authority of the magisterium so the catholics authority is not balanced on a three-legged stool of the magisterium sacred tradition and holy scripture but on a one-legged stool of the magisterium which subjectively determines what scripture and tradition are and how to interpret them the danger of submitting to this fallible authority extends to submitting to their authority of their unbiblical view of salvation of infusion of grace through the sacraments which also contradicts scripture which teaches justification by imputation of grace by faith alone as the apostle paul wrote in his fourth chapter in his epistle to the roman church quote for what does scripture say abraham believed god and it was credited or imputed to him as righteousness so that he might be the father of all who believe that righteousness might be credited or imputed to them and this includes mary who jesus saved her by redeeming and delivering her from her sins so whether we are discussing the miriam dogmas of papacy the purpose of baptism or communion or the biblical canon the real authority behind these debates is whether you trust in the sufficiency of god breathe scripture to reel itself to you or to the magisterium which often conflicts with it not just on the marian dogmas but also regarding salvation as trent horn stated in his debate against dr james white quote our theology should come from the bible not the bible from our theology that's sola scripture of folks and i agree with him as did the apostle paul and the first century roman church thank you and god bless everyone thank you very much steve trent whenever you begin i'll click the five minute timer sure yes i do remember in that debate with james white five years ago saying our theology should come from the bible not the bible from our theology and i was not arguing for sola scriptura my point was that we should not believe in doctrines that plainly contradict scripture in fact in that debate i never brought up the magisterium of the catholic church in response to that quote james white began to bring up all kinds of irrelevant issues such as my belief in the assumption of mary to try to say that i don't really believe in this principle i do as christians we should not believe things that contradict the word of god and catholics are very clear we do not believe anything that contradicts uh what we find in sacred scripture not everything we believe is found explicitly in sacred scripture and for protestants that's the same as well because the doctrines of the canon of scripture or even sola scriptura itself are not found explicitly in scripture so let's tie all of this up a little bit my goal today is to show that the marian dogmas do not contradict scripture uh you go a long way from that seeing that they're true but at least in showing that they don't contradict scripture a person can more easily approach the teaching office of the church and see well maybe other things it teaches does does make a lot of sense uh such as the real presence of christ in the eucharist the existence of an enduring magisterium baptismal regeneration and other things like that and then take heart in knowing that these teachings about mary don't contradict scripture and then we can further infer and try to understand what are the sources of divine revelation so to talk about things that came up in this debate uh there are things that came up that we're not debating things like solo scriptura the history of the marian dogmas as i said before that's not what we're debating today those would be irrelevant to the question uh my point though is to show that the marian dogmas do not contradict scripture i'm not alone in believing this as i showed earlier you have people like martin luther ulric zwingli who were firmly i would not call them catholic i don't think people at the time would call them catholics certainly they were baptized catholics but they opposed whatever they thought the church taught that contradicted sacred scripture in a wide variety of doctrines except they didn't contradict on mary being the mother of god or her being ever virgin because as steve agreed with me in this debate the greek word adelphos can mean adoptive sibling or half-sibling and i showed in my arguments that his claim that adelfay can only mean uterine sister of the same mother or figurative are simply not held up and that greek grammarians and new testament scholars simply disagree with steve on this point he's just wrong about the semantic range of that word and i also showed his other arguments to try to show that mary gave birth to other children such as from psalm 69 luke chapter 2 as well as the idea that matthew 1 25 requires that she and joseph had sexual relations none of that is required by greek grammar or what the verses say and i showed counter examples to that in each of those cases and eventually those ended up being dropped throughout the debate when it came to the immaculate conception steve did not really put forward any argument to show mary sinned herself uh just kind of a weak reference to mark chapter three and even there he admitted it doesn't explicitly talk about mary uh when we talked about there being universal truths about sin we both agreed on that and steve and i also both agreed that the universality of things like sin or death don't preclude exceptions hebrews 9 27 says it's appointed for men to die once but some people die twice some people don't die at all uh you know so steve even admits that jesus is an exception to the claims about the universality of sin but he'll say we can believe in that exception because of what's come from divine revelation in sacred scripture and i would say the same applies to mary we're just having different views about what counts as divine revelation but if we just read scripture and read it fairly and charitably there's nothing that contradicts so far mary being mother of god ever virgin or being immaculately conceived i think we both agree on the assumption steve said it does not the bible does not say mary was not assumed into heaven and in order to try to show her assumption would contradict it he had to use a very speculative argument about that she did not need to be rescued from death even though that doesn't apply to every case where god would take someone into heaven that rather it just there's nothing in there to preclude people being assumed uh body and soul into heaven including mary so ultimately we've seen this uh and i think what's important to remember all this that these dogmas do not take the place of christ mary doesn't take the place of christ mary always leads us to our son to her son they point us to jesus christ and so when we look to mary we always follow the words that she uttered to the servants at the wedding feast of cana do whatever he tells you and jesus tells us to honor our father and mother and we should honor his father and mother we honor our father who is in heaven and we give honor to mary who is the mother of god that brought our savior into the world and so in seeing these mary and dogma that they don't contradict scripture we can move forward in our understanding of authority to see what the church christ established really has taught and given to us for salvation all right thank you very much trent and steve stick around because i've got one final question for both of you but i wanted to say two things before i do that the first is if you are watching right now and you are not yet subscribed to this youtube channel click subscribe click the bell button it'll make me feel really good if nothing else we've got lots of great content that comes out weekly more seriously and you know you don't want to miss it so click subscribe second thing i want to point out is you should consider joining our locals community locals is a free speech platform so unlike twitter and youtube i'm very i'm not going to get banned from saying the sorts of things i say that go against secular dogma i run morning podcasts here on locals it's called morning coffee where we all sit down together have a coffee and have a very casual chat it's free to watch the podcast you just have to join locals in the same way you'd have to join twitter or facebook to get access to it so i'm going to put a link in the description below i already have please click that please join our community it's a very beautiful open community and you get free daily podcasts um and i think you'd really enjoy it okay so final question i have for each of you we'll start with uh steve and then trent um steve where can people learn more about you and the good stuff you've done oh you're on mute i forgot can you hear me now yes sir okay well first of all i want to thank you matt for having me on for hosting this debate and and for all that and and for everyone affiliated with pints with aquinas i also want to thank trent for agreeing to our second debate and we hit over 800 i saw it there so which actually our first debate so praise jesus for that um and i also want to thank trent for picking the particular title and how it was actually described because i had mentioned hey let's just do the perpetual virginity of mary and he's like you know let's do all three of them so it was trent's idea um it's just a shameless plug like it says i'm an author of two books people are familiar with with this one about why protestant bibles are smaller my first book is about not really of us why do uh children of christian parents abandon the faith you can get both of those on amazon um you can also um reach me on facebook twitter and uh youtube um on my uh screen name is uh born again rn so you can look at me that way i'm also gonna send matt a link to my other channel uh verisage.us backslash steve christie a lot of mouthful but that's what links are for so um thank you very much both you god bless you and stay safe out there thanks steve trent yeah no i'm grateful for steve to take part in this uh it's always nice to see people who are willing to put forward a rigorous argument and engage others charitably and yeah i would just encourage others i've always said this i don't see debates as a way to bring an issue to to an end to end an issue it's a way to begin exploration of it so i would definitely encourage uh people who are willing to explore the church's teachings about mary moore there are a lot of great resources at catholic.com i have two chapters on it in my book the case for catholicism my colleague tim staples has written an entire book on mary called behold your mother and also i know others have done a lot of work on this uh william albrecht has done a lot of great work on mary you can see him and others talk about this on the reason and theology channel brandt petry has some great work on mary as well for people to check out so yeah i would just encourage people just to continue to read and learn dive into the word dive into the the teachings of the church historically uh just to come to a knowledge of of the church jesus christ established this first timothy 3 15 says the pillar and foundation of truth thanks trent and steve i know it takes a ton of time to put these things together and to prepare for these debates so we really appreciate the time you've put into it trent and steve if you want to email me individually whatever links you'd like me to put in the description i'll be sure to do that god bless you see you later thanks everybody bye [Music] so [Music] [Music] so [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] do [Music] you

Channel: Pints With Aquinas

Views: 64,900

Keywords: aquinas, catholicism, catholic, pints with aquinas, matt fradd, theology, debate, religion, st. thomas aquinas, thomas aquinas, philosophy

Id: 3ztPLj7eKrk

Length: 128min 8sec (7688 seconds)

Published: Wed Apr 20 2022