MDYK: Answering Objections to Mary's Sinlessness

today we're going to be talking about mary and you know you're in my shot right get out of here you can't see it but he just landed seated on the pillow nothing in this video is going to get better than this so you could just tune out now subscribe first click the like button wait uh subscribe bell all like button tell your friends share the video yeah this was definitely the high point well let's just go through this now anyway today we're going to talk about mary and things you might not have known about mary that's right this is mary did you know it's mary did you know so a protestant by the name of zack king and zach i apologize if i mispronounced your name there also i know you don't like to refer to yourself as a protestant but you are so i'm not going to pretend that you aren't anyway zach made a video called mary was not a perpetual virgin catholicism debunk number one kjv anyway we have a video surrounding this topic already you can check that out the link is in the description also it's up here in the card what we learned in that video is that people ask the question was mary a perpetual virgin the answer is either yes she was or no she was not the unrefutable fact is that the bible has absolutely nothing in it that definitively proves either side of this argument so if you're over here saying mary was not a perpetual virgin the bible is not going to prove your claim if you're over here saying mary was a perpetual virgin the bible is not going to prove your claim if you want to know the answer to the question of was mary a perpetual virgin the bible is not going to help you you need an unbiblical source to answer that question that all being said zach does not seem to have done his homework on this topic at all so let's see what zach has to say the lord's really worked on my heart and has really prompted me to bring a lot of these truths to light um not for my glory but for his of course okay so you're never going to hear us making any claim close to this on our channel simply making the claim that the lord prompted you to bring some truths to light that doesn't mean that what you're about to say is actually the truth we hear how to be christian do not say that the lord has prompted us to bring these truths to light we say don't trust us test us i don't know if you picked up on this or not but i'm human zack is a human and humans make mistakes we typically don't want to i don't think zach meant to make so many mistakes in his video but he did and he pinned it on the lord so say it again don't trust us test us we can make mistakes just like anyone else zach can make mistakes listen to what we both have to say and see who's telling you the truth and by the way i can say the lord prompted me to bring these truths to light and then tell you that pizza is only to be consumed in the shape of a square and kathy griffin is universally viewed as a successful funny person neither of those two things are true even though i said it right after i said the lord prompted me to bring these truths to light so going forward zach i just hope you can realize you can make mistakes just like i can make mistakes just like kathy griffin made an awful mistake choosing comedy as a career that's i don't understand it i'm so kathy if you're watching i'm not going to apologize that's because i'm not sorry about that you're not funny i'm kidding she is funny to some people just not me i'm funny to some people not this person this person did not think i was funny and they did not seem to be okay with me being okay with that i'm not funny to everyone kathy griffin probably realizes yeah i'm not funny to everyone that's comedy it's subjective it's virtually impossible to go on your walk as a christian a bible-believing christian and not encounter catholic doctrine now that i agree with zach on it's virtually and literally impossible as a bible-believing christian to not encounter catholic doctrine because if you're a bible-believing christian which means you believe in the bible and i would assume that means you've read at least parts of the bible and the bible is full of catholic doctrine the bible came from the catholic christian church they got it from the spirit of truth who got it from jesus who had it from god and we have a video that goes into how christians got the bible the link is in the description also it's in the card here so check that out now what i think is great is what zach says next more and more a lot of churches in their ecumenical beliefs are slowly starting to take on catholic doctrines so more and more protestant christians are starting to drop the protestantism and keep the christianity and that's because protestant christians are realizing protestantism doesn't make any sense now zach uses as kind of bad news at the moment but hopefully someday zach will realize why protestants are leaving protestantism and the reason why they're leaving is because they're smart education is really the cure for protestantism so please share these videos because getting the word out there encouraging people to examine themselves to see whether ye be in the faith that's one of the main things that gets people to drop the protestantism and keep the christianity because when you do the research it doesn't take a genius to realize where the actual christian church is and it's never a protestant church we're actually going to have a link in the description it's an article by david anders david was a protestant he went into seminary he embraced its anti-catholic atmosphere i kind of got a bit of an anti-catholic vibe from zach so zach if you're watching folding sheen has a good quote on this there are not 100 people in the united states who hate the catholic church but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the catholic church to be if you're protestant and you've also embraced this anti-catholic atmosphere remember this quote if you actually do the honest research you're going to find that this quote is so very true but anyway david goes on to talk about how the faculty saw any compromise with catholics as a betrayal of the reformation according to them catholics were simply not brothers in the lord they were apostates now i think if i have this correct you can actually get an apostate exam the doctor has to put his hand up what oh there's an r okay never mind david says he accepted the anti-catholic attitudes of his seminary professors so when it came time to move on into studies he decided to focus on a historical study of the reformation he said i thought there could be no better preparation for assaulting the catholic church and winning converts than to thoroughly understand the minds of the great leaders of our faith martin luther and john calvin he said he never imagined that reformation church history would move him to the catholic church so i love this story and there are so many stories like this people set out to attack the catholic church and they're like okay what i'm going to do is i'm going to learn everything i can about like church history and that that's going to seal the deal that's going to make me unstoppable when it comes to destroying the catholic church but then they realize oh wait that's that's kind of where i want to be so yeah education is a pretty solid cure for protestantism thankfully we can rely on the word of god as being our final authority and we can always look to this book for truth and not the traditions of men so today we're going to talk a little bit more about mary now i agree with zach on that as well we can rely on the word of god as our final authority and remember the word of god is not limited to the bible some of the word of god can be found in the bible but the bible is not the only source of the word of god god's also a source certain people or sources the word of god exists in several places now i also agree with zach that we can always look to the bible for truth and we should not rely on the traditions of men ironically though zach actually relies on a lot of traditions of men and we're going to see that as the video continues so go on zach so from the bible was mary the mother of jesus a perpetual virgin we'll let the bible settle this so that there is no argument because what the bible says is what the bible says okay so zack says he's going to let the bible settle this so that there is no argument and i say let's go ahead and try that all right so according to zach's theory you don't have to listen to zach make an argument and you don't have to listen to me make an argument we could just you know let the bible settle this so that there is no argument i'm going to take this here that box down pillow and the bible here take it away all right that's a wrap hope that helped everybody i will see you in the next video don't forget to subscribe oh wait no this did nothing because this is the book and books can be interpreted in infinite different ways so contrary to what zack is saying the bible is not going to settle this issue zach's going to read a passage from the bible and he's going to say well see that means mary lost her virginity whereas i'm going to read that same exact passage and i'm going to say well that doesn't prove that she lost her virginity that's just your interpretation of what you're reading again neither side in this conversation can be proven by the bible but zack's not actually using the bible to try to prove his side what he's using is his interpretation of the bible and zach's interpretation of the bible is one of his traditions of men also zach reads a lot into his interpretations and we're going to see that as we continue here in matthew 13 55 the bible says when you look in the verse here this is when the people are acknowledging jesus when he returns to nazareth and is again rejected uh when he sorry i'm looking at verse 54 in verse 55 of matthew 13 it says is not this the carpenter's son and this is the people talking to them to acknowledging jesus is not his mother called mary and his brethren james and joseph and simon and judas and verse 56 continues and says and his sisters are they not all with us whence then hath this man all these things and so that he is referring to jesus himself and his brethren which were named and listed specifically their names are listed right there um are essentially his brothers no his sisters are also mentioned not necessarily by name but there's an indication there and that his brothers are acknowledged and his sisters are mentioned as well so zach is using an english translation of the bible and these words here that are being translated into english as brethren and sisters they can mean biological brothers or sisters or half-brothers and half-sisters or step-brothers and step-sisters but they can also just mean close relatives they can also mean people of a shared belief large groups of people are referred to as brothers just because there's 500 brothers here that doesn't mean they all came from the same month so the reason why the bible doesn't prove either of these sides here is because any of these definitions are possible so of course this side's going to say well it's got to be this definition here just ignore these other ones this side on the other hand can say well actually there's a bunch of definitions there it could be any one of them so let's one acknowledge that the bible never specifies which definition of brother or sister to use and two look outside the bible to see if more information on the topic exists so there's another tradition of men that zach has he's saying that the brethren and sisters referred to in the bible has to mean jesus's half brothers and half sisters what zack believes there that is not a biblical teaching that is not a god-breathed teaching that is a tradition of men and for some reason he's decided to rely on that tradition of men even though he says you shouldn't do that thankfully we can rely on the word of god as being our final authority and we can always look to this book for truth and not the traditions of men so while zach's over here limiting the definitions you can use this side's just like use any of those definitions we're fine with that because when zach's over here limiting himself to one definition even that definition doesn't prove his side because the topic in question is was mary a perpetual virgin it is not did jesus have half brothers and half sisters so zack is saying yes to the question of jesus having half brothers and half sisters let's pretend that's true if jesus has half brothers and half sisters does that mean that mary lost her virginity no because according to zack's own beliefs mary can have children without losing her virginity she was a virgin when she bear jesus christ it's very clear from scripture that that's the case most bible bible-believing christians know that mary was key word there was a virgin when she gave birth to the savior so let's dive into zack's mind here he thinks that mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the savior which means that zach has no problem believing that mary can give birth to a child without losing her virginity but now zac's attempt to prove that mary lost her virginity is based solely on his claim that mary had other children so it should be pretty simple and straightforward when matthew 13 55 and 56 already mentions his brethren his siblings but you know that right there should already prove that mary was not a perpetual virgin she was a virgin when she was when she conceived and gave birth to jesus but she did not stay a virgin especially not if he had brothers and sisters what zack is doing there is making an illogical argument because his argument is mary had children therefore that proves that she was not a virgin but that goes directly against zach's belief that mary had a child and remained a virgin and zach might say well jesus conception that was a special case and yeah it was but also people can still become pregnant while remaining a virgin like even outside the case of jesus that can happen case of jesus that sounds like mexican food like i'll have two tacos a burrito and um throwing a case of jesus we're all out what never mind i just found 20. wait no 40. ah they keep multiplying it's a miracle the case of jesus it's like melted cheese bread and fish anyways that continues his argument now i want to make this distinction clear here once and for all that they were his half-brothers since him and his siblings shared the same mother which is mary but obviously not the same father jesus's father is god the father not joseph joseph was his adopted father but obviously they call him brothers because that's what you would do even if you have half siblings you'd call them brothers and sisters okay so zach is claiming that brethren and sisters means half brothers and half sisters can't mean any of these other things it's gotta mean half brothers and half sisters that's weird though because earlier zach was saying this we'll let the bible settle this so that there is no argument so if zach was really going to let the bible settle this then he would not be adding the word half to brethren and sisters so zach might have thought it sounded pretty good and humble at the beginning of the video and he's like hey let's not argue about this let's just let the bible settle it but the thing is the bible's not settling this this is zach adding words to the bible to make it say what he wants it to say the bible just says brethren and sisters these words that we see here in english are translated over from words that could have any of these meanings so again zack is not using the bible to settle this zack is using his interpretation of the bible and actually his additions to the bible and then his interpretation of that and the only reason why zach is adding half here is because that's what gets him closer to proving his side again zach's own belief that mary was able to have a child yet remain a virgin prevents zack from actually proving his point but he gets closer to where he wants to be but this strict addition of half to the verses that is a tradition of men that zach is relying on could the interpretation of those words actually be half brothers and half sisters yeah but having a child does not prove that you lost your virginity that normally happens but there are cases and even zach agrees where that doesn't happen if these right here are half brothers and sisters that's not a problem for this side if they're biological brothers and sisters meaning that god is the father and marries the mother not a problem for this side because god could just do the same thing he did before if it's step brothers and sisters those could be joseph's kids as we talked about in the other videos some people believe that joseph had children from prior marriage his wife passed away then he married mary and those children became mary's stepchildren and jesus's stepbrothers and sisters and guess what mary doesn't have to lose in order to have stepchildren her car keys that's not the answer i was looking for but it works and divergent her virginity she doesn't have to lose that either so car keys and virginity you don't have to lose those in order to have step kits if the definition is close relatives not a problem for this side if the definition is people who believe the same thing again not a problem for this side this side on the other hand needs it to be that one set of definitions and even that doesn't get them where they need to be because they already believe that mary can have a child while remaining a virgin so this probably seems pretty straightforward but if this side wants to prove that mary lost her virginity you actually have to prove that she lost her virginity not that she had kids when you're saying she can have kids without losing her virginity now that being said if anyone could prove that mary had other children like she actually gave birth to other children i would probably be like yeah that probably means she lost her virginity i understand where that argument's coming from because to not lose it and have more children would be rare but the thing is this side can't even get to that point they have no way of definitively saying that mary gave birth to other children the most that the bible explicitly says on this topic is that jesus had brothers and sisters it never tells us which of these definitions we should use for those words so that's why you can't prove either of these sides with the bible we'll let the bible settle this so that there is no argument the bible does not settle this issue you got to go outside the bible which is fine because the bible does not contain all the information you can know about christianity and we have videos on this topic you can check those out the links are in the description continue zach there are multiple examples and references and explicit mentions to his half-siblings so just a quick vocab lesson here explicit means fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated leaving nothing merely implied so we just heard zach say there were explicit mentions of half-siblings there are multiple examples and references and explicit mentions to his half-siblings that's not true at all zach if you think that's true let us know where these explicit mentions are and remember explicit means fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated leaving nothing merely implied remember how you had to put the word half in here just a little hint that's because it's not explicitly mentioned so again this is the tradition of men that zack is using he's just inserting words into the bible he's not relying only on god's words he's relying on zack's words or whoever told zach to put those words in the bible's words either way the fact remains there is no explicit mention of jesus having half-brothers or half-sisters in the bible and just in fyi martin luther who is the founder of protestantism would not agree with zach on this stuff actually a lot of protestants don't agree with zach on this as we looked at in the previous video this side is not just catholic christians this is catholic and protestant christians this side is purely protestant christians and again zach i know you deny being a protestant but that's what you are if i say i'm not a human that doesn't make me not a human i'm still a human so i'm just gonna call it like it is anyways that goes on to matthew 12. if you look at matthew 12 in verse 46 let me see here the bible says while he yet talked to the people behold his mother and his brethren stood without desiring to speak with them again his brethren his brothers and then when you look down a couple verses down in verse 49 and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said behold my mother and my brethren so you not only have people saying that he had brothers and sisters but you have jesus himself saying that he had brothers so that's something you want to look out for if someone's jumping from verse to verse maybe actually look at the whole passage because zach just read 46 skipped a bit and then got to 49. the full passage says while he talked to the people behold his mother and brethren stood without desiring to speak with him then one said unto him behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without desiring to speak with thee but he answered and said unto him that told him who is my mother and who are my brethren and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said behold my mother and my brethren for whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven the same is my brother and sister and mother so we're told that jesus mother and brethren showed up someone told jesus that his mother and brethren were there and then jesus asked a couple questions he said who is my mother and who are my brethren and then he stretched forth his hand to his disciples and said behold my mother and my brethren so it says he stretched forth his hand to the disciples not to his mother and his brethren he stretched forth his hand to his disciples and he said behold my mother and my brethren so an interpretation of that could be that he's gesturing towards the disciples and saying you are all my mother and my brethren so speaking in more of a metaphorical way his mother and his brethren are all the disciples which would make sense because the next thing he says is for whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven the same as my brother and sister and mother so what was it that zach just said so you not only have people saying that he had brothers and sisters but you have jesus himself saying that he had brothers okay so jesus did say he had brothers but that wasn't jesus's entire statement zach completely hacked off the beginning and end of the quote according to the bible jesus asked who is my mother and who are my brother and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said behold my mother and my brother and he followed that up by saying for whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven the same as my brother and sister and mother that doesn't necessarily paint the picture that zach is trying to paint here now i'm not saying zach's interpretation is wrong jesus could have been like hey i'm gesturing towards you disciples behold my mother and my brother they're over there check their check them out over there i'm kind of signaling towards you and then i say this thing that kind of makes it sound like i'm talking about you but i'm really talking about them over there so behold they're over there zach's interpretation is not what i would go with but i'm not going to say it's not an interpretation because you can interpret things multiple different ways that being said we already went over why the brother sing doesn't help or hurt either one of these sides i just wanted to show you a kind of trick that protestants will do well they'll skip from verse to verse they'll cut out the middle parts if you look at matthew 12 in verse 46 and then when you look down a couple verses down in verse 49 so just be aware of that if you hear someone just jumping from verse to verse and not reading you the entire passage and actually if you'd like my advice i would say don't just listen to what people are saying the passage says crack open a bible read it there for yourself that's why we have the text up on the screen so you don't have to trust me when i'm saying this is what the bible says you can read it anyway in addition to the teaching that mary was a perpetual virgin christians also believe that mary was sinless not zack though zach kind of tries to attack that as well let's talk a little bit touch a little bit more on her so-called sinlessness as the catholics would like uh to believe mary was not sinless i'm going to repeat that one more time mary was not sinless she was not perfect in the sense that she was without sin she was just a regular girl like everybody else a regular jewish woman i mean she was special and definitely blessed because she was chosen by god to bear the savior but she was not without sin i don't know how much more i can make that any clearly okay so let me give you an example of what just happened there i can fly i can fly i can fly like a bird i can fly i don't know how i could be any more clearer than that she was not perfect in the sense that she was without sin she was not without sin mary was not sinless mary was not sinless i don't know how much more i can make that any clearly simply repeating your claim four times doesn't prove anything if i want to prove that i can fly i should stop saying i can fly and just fly you understand that my claim is that i can fly in order to have some clarity on the issue i don't just repeat it three more times i actually show you that i can fly so zack simply repeating four times in a row that mary was not sinless doesn't provide any clarity on the issue he should actually prove to us that she wasn't sinless show us the time she sent shows the time she said she was a sinner zach can't do any of that because examples of that do not exist now ironically after saying he doesn't know how he can make it more clear to you he does try to make it more clear but it's not good she needed to also believe on him and be saved just like everybody else now matthew 12 which we were just looking at if we want to continue on after verse 49 when we pick up in verse 50 what does jesus say for whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven the same is my brother and sister and mother pretty clear huh when it comes to jesus saying this his mother brother and sister all needed to believe and receive him as lord and savior in order to be saved so this is why it's good to read along when someone's telling you what a verse says verse 50 in the king james version of the bible which is the version that zach is using says for whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven the same is my brother and sister and mother but now let's listen again to what zach is saying it said we pick up in verse 50 what does jesus say for whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven the same is my brother and sister and mother pretty clear huh when it comes to jesus saying this his mother brother and sister all needed to believe and receive him as lord and savior in order to be saved so zach is moving things around in that verse he's adding to the verse and he's making it say my brother and sister and my mother mary need to do the will of my father which is in heaven which is to believe in jesus in order to be saved that is not written in that verse that's a tradition of men so again zach is relying on a tradition of man which is this altered version of verse 50. so i'm pretty sure this particular tradition of men came directly from zach that being said we're going to pretend that this verse actually exists this edited altered verse we're going to say all right let's give zach that and say that's what it actually says because what zach's doing here is actually trying to make another argument which is actually the more common protestant argument that you might hear on this so take it away if you go back to luke chapter one all the way in the beginning i mean this is obviously the story of the christmas story that we all like to read like to acknowledge it talks about the birth of our savior but in luke chapter one this is mary's own words and like for all you roman catholics out there look at what mary said herself in verse 46 and mary said my soul doth magnify the lord my soul doth magnify the lord the lord being jesus christ and my spirit hath rejoiced in god my savior my spirit hath rejoiced in god my savior mary actually doesn't even go on to call herself the mother of god she was the mother of jesus but she doesn't even call herself that she calls herself in the next first a handmaiden she doesn't elevate herself she humbled herself and was obviously exalted but she herself didn't exalt herself she calls herself a handmaiden verse 48 for he hath regarded the low estate of his she being his gods handmaiden for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed truth why would mary need a savior if she were sinless okay so now it kind of makes sense what zack is trying to do here he altered verse 50 because he wanted to say that mary needed to be saved i don't know why he did that luke 1 is a much better example of mary needing a savior and no christian on this side or the side would deny that mary had a savior they're both going to tell you yeah mary had a savior sometimes people on this side such as zack will try to pretend that this means a lot more than it actually means so zack is asking why would mary need a savior if she were sinless why would mary need a savior if she were sinless and zack is not the originator of this question this is actually a question that's been around for years when you think about it it doesn't make any sense but unfortunately some people are tricked by this question so let's go over it the verse says and mary said my soul doth magnify the lord and my spirit hath rejoiced in god my savior so from that we can learn god is mary's savior but the verse doesn't say my spirit hath rejoiced in god my savior who saved me from the sins that i committed it just says and my spirit hath rejoiced in god my savior the trick that protestants are trying to use with this question is to make you think that having a savior means you have sin but let's say someone's house was on fire and then a firefighter came in and saved them from that house firefighter got him out of there really quick no burns no smoke inhalation they were perfectly fine and then the person say my spirit hath rejoiced in the firefighter my savior if we were to follow the same logic of the protestants we'd have to say well if firefighters saved you you had to get burned so there's no way you could not be burned and you could still be saved you got to be burned and then saved no you don't likewise we're never told here how god is mary's savior this verse might not even have to do with sin if god saved mary from like a llama attack then she could still say god is my savior but let's say this verse actually does have to do with sin can god be married save you from sin and mary still be sinless yeah because god could have saved mary completely from sin making sure she never had any sin therefore she would be sinless and have god as her savior likewise people can be burnless and have a firefighter as their savior so zack i hope that helps also if you keep reading the next verse says for he that is mighty hath done to me great things and holy is his name so perhaps one of these great things that god did to mary was keep her away from sin completely god can do that he's mighty god could be mary's savior from sin before mary ever sinned so this mix up here that zach is relying on is yet another tradition of men to say that god can only save people who sin that's not biblical at all that's not in the word of god now again this is another one of those situations where neither side is proven by the bible so i'm not saying this proves that mary was sinless i'm just saying it doesn't prove what zach is saying now the point of this video is not to prove that mary was sinless if you want to learn about that we have some links in the description below the point of this video is to show that none of zach's arguments actually hold up in court here's another one she calls herself in the next verse a handmaiden she doesn't elevate herself she humbled herself and was obviously exalted but she herself didn't exalt herself she calls herself a handmaiden verse 48 for he hath regarded the low estate of his she being his gods handmaiden for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed truth okay so time for another vocab lesson a handmaiden is a person or thing that serves a useful but subordinate purpose so now what was zach's question why would she refer to herself as such a handmaiden if she were holy and exalted the way the catholics uh revere her so why would mary refer to herself as a handmaiden if she was wholly and exalted that's easy the answer is because being a handmaiden does not prohibit you from being holy or exalted being a handmaiden has nothing to do with being holy or exalted again the definition of handmaiden is a person that serves a useful but subordinate purpose so mary can be holy exalted and a handmaiden all at the same time in other words zack's question makes no sense at all now this next thing that zach's going to say is probably the closest to a good argument that they have for their side but it falls apart just like the other ones it's just it's better than the other ones but more importantly if you just look down at luke chapter 2 and starting in verse 21-24 specifically in verse 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the lord a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons the law of the lord so here's one thing you need to acknowledge when we look at luke chapter 2 from verses 21 to 24 she is shown here offering a pair of turtledoves pigeons right a pair of pigeons a pair of turtle doves here one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering and this is in accordance to the levitical law so if you go back to leviticus and read about the levitical law me i mean that's essentially her keeping the law of moses you know as a jewish woman as an israelite a hebrew woman and you would have to do this if you were a sinner as well why would you have to have a sacrifice or an offering for a sin offering if you were sinless right and so according to the law of moses every uh jewish mother who conceived the child had to offer sacrifices to god had to go to the temple and do this and when she gives birth in luke chapter 2 you find just that down there in verses 21 through 24 where she keeps that law and if mary were sinless as over a billion roman catholics would like to believe she wouldn't have to offer sacrifices so most if not all protestant arguments are very poorly thought out and the arguments might sound good at first like this particular one i would say is probably the best thing that this side has come up with on this topic but then when you put a little bit of thought into them it's like oh wait never mind that's that's not my argument that's it that's going to get me in trouble and the way this one gets you in trouble is because it actually creates a situation in which case jesus would end up being a sinner so without any research looks pretty good but then when you look into it which is what we're going to do now not the best thing so leviticus says and the lord's back spake and the lord spake unto moses i'm not a fan of the king james version of the bible too many fancy words but the lord spoke unto moses saying speak unto the children of israel saying if a woman have conceived seed and born a man-child then she shall be unclean seven days according to the days of the separation for infirmity shall she begin clean and in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised it just feels more natural reading like this i'll stop and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days she shall touch no hallow thing nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purifying be fulfilled these instructions wouldn't apply to mary because it's talking about a maid child and she had a man child when the days of her purifying are fulfilled for her son she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtle dove for a sin offering unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation unto the priest who shall offer it before the lord and make an atonement for her and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood this is the law for her that hath born a male or a female so it says right there this is the law for her that have borne a male or a female it doesn't say this is the law for her that have borne a male or a female and has sinned it says this is the law for her that hath born a male or a female so that means that this law could be intended for both people who have sinned and people who have not sinned this is just the law this is what they're supposed to do that's why we're told that mary was acting according to the law it didn't say she made the offering because she sinned she made the offering which was a sin offering because that's what the law told her to do and if she's not able to bring a lamb then she shall bring two turtles or two young pigeons the one for the burnt offering and the other for her sin offering and the pre shall make an atonement for her and she shall be clean so mary's acting according to law she brought jesus to be circumcised then she went to jerusalem to offer a sacrifice according to that which is set in the law of the lord a pair of turtle doves and two young pigeons now we're told in leviticus that they are making a sin offering but it doesn't say they had to have sinned in order to make the sin offering and as for the passage in luke it never says mary sinned and that's why she's offering the sacrifice it's saying she's offering a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the lord but the argument zach is making is she made a sin offering that must mean she sinned that's not true and also that gets that in trouble because if you go to mark chapter 1 it says the beginning of the gospel of jesus christ the son of god as it is written in the prophets behold i send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare thy way before thee the voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the lord make his path straight john did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins and there he went out unto him all the land of judea and they have jerusalem and were all baptized of him in the river of jordan confessing their sins so we're told that john is preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins and guess who showed up to get baptized it came to pass in those days that jesus came from nazareth of galilee and was baptized of john and the jordan so since john was preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins and not only was he preaching it but he was actually baptizing with the baptism of repentance and since jesus got baptized by john does that mean that jesus had sinned no jesus and mary can both do things that are typically done by people who have sinned and not have sinned themselves why would you have to have a sacrifice or an offering for a sin offering if you were sinless i could ask zach the same question about jesus why would you have to have a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins if you were sinless the answer to both of those questions could be neither jesus nor mary had to have these things for the sin aspect of the ritual they could have done the ritual for other reasons if mary were sinless as over a billion roman catholics would like to believe she wouldn't have to offer sacrifices that's simply not true if zack would just read the full passage it says if a woman have conceived seed and born a man child then she shall be unclean in the eighth day he should be circumcised and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days she shouldn't do any of this until this happens and then she shall do these things at no point does it say she shall do these things if and only if she has sinned but that's what zach would need the passage to say in order to prove his point but it doesn't say that it just says she shall do these things so even as a sinless person mary would have a reason to do these things because she's living in accordance to that which is said in the law of the lord zach again is relying on a tradition of men and he's saying that sin offerings can only be offered by people who have sinned i don't know about any of you but when i go to church these days we have a hand sanitizer station i usually wash my hands before i go to church but the rule is you use that hand sanitizer so i can use my own hand sanitizer outside the church and then i can walk in and then still use that hand sanitizer station because that's what we're supposed to do the esters are standing there just make sure people know the guidelines and that's what we do but just because i'm using that hand sanitizer that doesn't mean i need the hand sanitizer i'm just doing the thing that we're supposed to do so yeah people do use hand sanitizer to clean their hands but sometimes people with clean hands also use the hand sanitizer using hand sanitizer doesn't mean your hands are dirty making a sin offering doesn't mean that you have sinned and also getting baptized doesn't mean that you have sinned now zach does cite romans 3 where it says for all have sinned and come short of the glory of god and there is none that doeth good no not one and he cites one timothy 2 where it says for there is one god and one mediator between god and men the man christ jesus who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time but zach gives no explanation as to why he's citing these passages both sides believe in these passages so basically zach just read things that both sides believe in here's the extent of his arguments she was with sin just like everybody else because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god and there is none good not one there is one mediator between god and men and it's not mary it's the lord jesus christ so there you have it so my question to zach is do you think these passages help to prove your belief that mary had sinned and if so please explain if zach responds then we can test out why he's including these passages we had some guesses as to why he was putting them in here but we didn't want to assume so just a couple things to remember zack if you do respond one jesus was a man so if you say that this all or none refers to all or none of mankind then you would need to include jesus in that group as well for instance if you're reading for all have sinned and you're assuming that that means all as in everyone with no exceptions and that's why you're saying mary has sinned because she's part of that all jesus would be part of that all too so if you're using this to prove that mary sinned then you also have to say that jesus sinned too and if you're saying well jesus is an exception to this all then guess what mary can be an exception to it too clearly this all has exceptions babies can be exceptions to this all i mean do you know any sinful babies i don't the second thing to remember is that jesus is said to be a specific type of mediator not the only possible mediator mediator is a general term mailmen are mediators so there are several mediators but only one mediator in the specific way that jesus is a mediator there is one mediator between god and man and it's not mary yet nobody's saying that this passage refers to mary mary is a mediator because there are several mediators but this particular type of mediator that's jesus so yeah when answering this question just remember these things should save a lot of time alright so in closing zach takes a completely unearned victory lap let's check it out so there you have it you know biblical proof couple things here that mary number one was not a perpetual virgin and that she was not sinless yeah he offered no biblical proof for any of what he said that ought to make you reconsider the uh the heresy and the falsehoods and catholicism if the bible plainly refutes their beliefs yeah so if the bible really did refute catholicism then people would leave catholicism but you're not hearing stories like david anders about people doing a bunch of research and then leaving catholic christianity instead it's the opposite the more you learn as a protestant the more likely you are to end up on this side did i say er i think i said you are but yeah education moves you over here the reason you hear about catholics becoming protestant is because they don't know what catholics believe they're not doing research so catholics with a poor education might end up on this side but protestants with a good education usually end up on this side and i say usually because there are some really smart people on this side and i don't understand how they're still on this side my guess is that ego plays a role in it because if you read david's story he talks about how hard it was for him to admit that ugh i gotta end up on this side this is the correct side i was trying to fight this side but now i want to be part of the side so yeah i think when you have really smart people over here and they're just not coming over to the correct side i'm pretty sure it has to do with ego and then just not wanting to admit that yeah i was wrong about some stuff understand also that roman catholicism is a religion based on the tradition of men and not on god's word zack if you watched this video and i hope you have you were the only one who relied on traditions of men this side over here the catholic christians and the protestant christians who believe that mary was perpetually a virgin and mary was sinless they have no problem saying that the bible does not prove this because the bible doesn't prove either side but zack you're relying on these traditions of men instead of just accepting what the bible has to say and the fact is the bible does not prove your side either so you're relying on these traditions of men because you need them to make the word of god say what you want it to say but the word of god doesn't say what these traditions of men say that's protestantism that's not christianity and i do want to point this out because zach is kind of framing it like as a catholic christians versus protestant christians thing it's a catholic christians and protestant christians versus some of the other protestant christians now as i mentioned before zach does deny being a protestant and i know there's already people thinking well you know what you believe came out of roman catholicism no what i believe did not come out of roman catholicism i am not a protestant i want to also acknowledge that just as a brief segway here i am a bible-believing christian zach is a protestant he's a christian too but he's a protestant any christian there are two different groups we have a series that looks at the difference between christians and protestants it's called christian verses protestant and the playlist is linked below also in the card here i do want to point this out i think that zach actually believes that catholic christians are believing the wrong thing he's not just trying to like lead people astray for no reason as you can see with david anders story this typically happens protestants will hear all these weird things about catholic christianity and they do hate what they wrongly perceive catholic christianity to be but as fulton sheen says not 100 people hate the catholic church they just hate what they think it is so zach i get it you think you're helping out the lord you think you're being prompted to tell these truths but what you're saying isn't true you should actually do the research and find out what catholic christians are teaching and examine your faith look at all these traditions of men that you're relying on these things are not in the bible these are teachings of protestantism as usual when you put some thought into it protestantism just doesn't make any sense but anyway this was mary did you know but how to be christian you all have a great day and there's no end i have nothing more to say bye bye

Channel: How To Be Christian

Views: 16,572

Rating: 4.8504958 out of 5

Keywords: Christian, faith, Bible, Scripture, how to be christian, htbc, zach hing, Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin - Catholicism Debunk #1 (KJV), perpetual virgin, was Mary sinless, Mary sinless, sinless Mary, did Mary sin, sin offering, answering objections to Mary, did Mary remain a virgin, Mary had a Savior, Mary was saved, Mary needed saving, Catholic, Protestant, Church teaching, traditions of men, KJV Bible, Mary did you know

Id: lGdmfUFqZT4

Length: 42min 46sec (2566 seconds)

Published: Mon Jan 04 2021