Marion Dogma Debate Review - Trent Horn Vs Steve Christie

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:32):
Are you drunk.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Because all you do is ride a cooler and you're sweating.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
I am, well, it's no, it's hot as it's hotter than.

Speaker 4 (00:41):
A two dollars twelve layers.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
Yeah, that was gonna be really cold.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Like you're from Canada, this should be like this should
be springtime.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
No, I know I'm from Canada, but you know I'm
still a human being. It's not like it evolved differently
so I'm from the frozen North. Yeah, it gets colder
than it gets colder than it gets colder than a

(01:10):
vampire's demeanor.

Speaker 1 (01:16):
Surprisingly cerebral.

Speaker 3 (01:20):
Iron horse of broadcast.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
It's iron. You don't pronounce it iron. That's what everybody
tells me, the iron hork like Lou Derek was the
iron horse of baseball. Yes, the word I R O
n is iron. No, no iron iron. That's what makes
English the world's toughest language. You know, right, sure it
is the toughest language. That's the easiest. Yeah, you were

(01:43):
born with you.

Speaker 5 (01:45):
In his book, O. J. Simpson says that he would
have taken a bullet or stood in front of a
train for Nicole Man. I'm gonna tell you that has
some bad luck. When the one guy who would have
died for you kills you. That's got.

Speaker 6 (02:02):
That worse lack than that Norm McDonald.

Speaker 7 (02:04):
Did you guys write together on a He's not a
friend of mine?

Speaker 8 (02:07):
Oh right, well, I was just using it loosely.

Speaker 4 (02:13):
Not a friend, not a fan.

Speaker 6 (02:14):
You worked with him though at Saturday Lit Roseanne.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
No, I missed him at Roseanne.

Speaker 8 (02:19):
Well, I came in and he was supposed to be
the h my kind of my guide through SNL.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
It turned out that you had a look of surprise
on your face even when this woman said, well, you know,
Norm was supposed to be my guide through Saturday. Did
anyone inform you that you are her guide?

Speaker 7 (02:37):
There was no such mentoring program and Saturday Night Live
was it?

Speaker 9 (02:40):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:40):
She came in directly after me, so I wouldn't be
her mentor. Yeah, I'm not going to guide any lady
through comedy.

Speaker 9 (02:48):
That would take me.

Speaker 3 (02:49):
First of all, I'd have to figure out how lady
could do commed.

Speaker 4 (02:55):
Fantastic. Welcome everyone to read out, Christian. How are you
doing tonight?

Speaker 9 (03:01):
Doing? Swell sir? How about you?

Speaker 4 (03:04):
I'm doing great? Thank you very much. What's drinking?

Speaker 9 (03:07):
I actually had Chinese suit tonight, so I had to
pair it with an Asian beer. So we're drinking some saporos.

Speaker 4 (03:13):
Nice may focus Strip.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
How you doing?

Speaker 6 (03:17):
I'm doing all right? You know we're here, ready to
ready to rock and roll. Let's go.

Speaker 9 (03:21):
Let's cleanse our minds from that last.

Speaker 4 (03:25):
Be a nice palate cleanser. Yeah, no, Christians, I'm.

Speaker 6 (03:28):
Ready to actually learn something rather than lose brain cells.
This should be more much.

Speaker 4 (03:34):
Well, we hopefully we can provide that to everyone here
is coming over from the focus strip stream or just
joining us just for this stream. I don't know if
that's anyone at this point, but hopefully, hopefully we're starting
to gather an audience of our own focus strip or
John I should say, do you have anything to drink
to power you through the night?

Speaker 6 (03:53):
Yeah, bro, I got I got half of a body
arm or zero. It's an orange flavor. It's really good.
It helps me to keep talking. And it was caffeinated. No no, no,
no for a caffeine. I used to have half of
the pre workout as well that I've been sipping on
all night.

Speaker 4 (04:09):
So all right, excellent, and I'm a banishing off a
glass of Jamison. My wife and I have been watching
some peaky blinders, and I don't know, it just always
gets me in the mood for Irish whiskey.

Speaker 6 (04:20):
So there you go.

Speaker 4 (04:22):
All right. So for anyone who did not see the
thumbnail or the title, today, we are going to be
reviewing a debate on the Marion Dogmas. So we've got
Trent Horn and you know, I actually forget the the
other gentleman's name. Secret's okay, Yeah, I haven't watched the set.
Did you guys watch this ahead of time?

Speaker 9 (04:43):
I watched. I watched about halfway through.

Speaker 6 (04:45):
Okay, okay, because I did not watch it either, So
this should be very entertaining.

Speaker 4 (04:50):
Yeah, I mean, I think it'll be fun to do
a fresh react. I may have watched it at some
point in the past, but either way, I'm excited. I
think it'll overlap some with the content that we've already
talked about. But one of the reasons why you picked
this particular debate, there were a couple other options we have.
Could have done a Soli scapare one. We could have
done a baptism one with hot let's just go to
a new topic. We can always swing back around to
the others at some point, So I think this would

(05:11):
be good new information and looking forward to hearing everyone's takes.

Speaker 9 (05:15):
Well, that's what actually aligns quite well too, because August
fifteenth is a holy day of obligation for Catholics and
it is the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August.

Speaker 6 (05:24):
All right, yeah, well there you go.

Speaker 4 (05:29):
All right, Well, I'm good to press play whenever.

Speaker 6 (05:31):
All right, I skipped the intro, but I think it's
not quite at the opening statement, so I'm not sure
if you want to watch the opening or not.

Speaker 10 (05:40):
Good, I got I welcome to pint sweer.

Speaker 4 (05:43):
You can jump past the intros the yeah, get opening statements.

Speaker 6 (05:49):
All right, so this is going to be Steve's opening
statement first, and I'm actually I'll just drop the link
for this in chat as well for those of you
who want to take a look at it.

Speaker 9 (06:00):
Just for some context too. I think Matt Fraud is
also a Catholic apologist, Catholic influencer.

Speaker 6 (06:06):
Yeah, well yeah, pines with a quietas would lead one
to believe that, Well, yeah, he's a Catholic apologist streamer,
debater type thing, and he's hosted many people from many
different religions, not just Catholics but also Protestants, Muslims and
other guys on his channels well, and lots of good
content on there, very professional looking. Perhaps someday we can

(06:27):
reach that level of quality.

Speaker 8 (06:28):
Maybe some of the ways Trent and I would agree
that a dogma contradicts scripture is explicitly, implicitly, or partially so.
Even if that dogma is defined ex cathedral by a pope,
by an ecumenical council, or by the magisterium, if it

(06:49):
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 at alfoyd translated others can have
numerous meetings in scripture, the specific Greek word at al
fay translated sisters only has two one one's natural sisters

(07:10):
such as a sister of the same parents or a
half sister, or two a believing sister such as a
Christian sister. It has used this way consistently in the
New Testament as well as in the septuagen word is
used over one 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

(07:32):
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 sumgunes or anepsios. See
also Luke fourteen twelve and twenty one sixteen, where the
evangelist uses different Greek words to distinguish relatives from brothers. Therefore,

(07:56):
when Mark sixt' three refers to jesus brothers and sisters
not honoring him, we know this refers to Jesus' younger
half siblings. When Matthew won twenty five, writes, Joseph kept
Mary a virgin until she gave birth to a son.
The specific Greek words haus who, when translated until, is
used consistently in the New Testament to refer to a

(08:18):
change in condition, while the New Testament does use different
Greek words translated until to refer to the condition continuing
after the events, such as akray mechri ice, and even
haus 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

(08:40):
approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the
United States Catholic Conference supports this quote.

Speaker 7 (08:46):
The Greek word.

Speaker 8 (08:47):
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

(09:07):
Isaiah seven fourteen prophecy only indicates that Mary was to
remain a virgin during her pregnancy and up to the
Messiah's birth.

Speaker 7 (09:15):
The agency continues, quote.

Speaker 4 (09:18):
It seems a little bit hot on my end, like
it's just a little bit loud compared to the way
where our volume is.

Speaker 6 (09:24):
That you're done just a little bit.

Speaker 8 (09:27):
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

(09:49):
her virginity would extend throughout her entire life, but only
distress that the Messiah's birth would be supernatural and that
Jesus was divine. As a believing Jew Anne Christian, Mary
would not have disobeyed God who commanded married couples to
be fruitful and multiplied, nor would she have deprived her husband,
as the apostle Paul wrote, the wife must fulfill her

(10:11):
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. One Corinthian seven
three to five. Luke two seven describes Jesus as the
firstborn of Mary, although the Greek word protaticus translated firstborn
can indicate firstborn opening the womb and is used this

(10:33):
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 firstborn among their other

(10:53):
children see Genesis thirty five twenty three, Deuteronomy twenty one
point fifteen, Joshua six twenty six for MS. Chronicles three
to one, and Hebrews eleven twenty eight, where first born
is also used this way. If Luke was communicating Jesus
was Mary's only child, he would have used the Greek
word monogamists translated only begotten, rather than protodicas like he

(11:15):
did elsewhere in his gospel, such as in Luke seven twelve,
eight forty two, and nine thirty eight, and in John
three point sixteen, where Jesus is the only begotten son
of God meaning the only one. Lastly, Psalm sixty nine
eight is a messianic verse, I have become a strange
from my brothers and an alien to my mother's sons
because verse nine begins with four, which is a conjunction

(11:39):
meaning because since or therefore, indicating that the same Messiah
who would expeel experience zeal for your house in verse
nine is also the same Messiah whose mother would have
other children in verse eight, which prophesied Jesus' younger half
brothers not believing in him. In John seven three to
five and dishonoring him in Mark six three to four,

(12:01):
which occurred earlier in Mark three twenty to twenty one,
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 approach him later in verse
thirty one, Jesus contrasts his biological brothers who dishonored him

(12:22):
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 twenty to twenty one when
they accused him of being out of his senses. This
is also the view of Saint John Chrysostom as late
as the fifth century, venerated as a doctor of the

(12:44):
Church of Roman Catholicism, who also believed Mary thought Jesus
had gone mad. Other doctors like Ambrose, Augustine Ireneus, and
others in the early Church like Tertullian origin, Hilary of
Poitier and seven popes believed Mary was either conceived in
sin or committed acts of personal sin, including Thomas Aquinas
as late as the thirteenth century. When Mary declared God

(13:07):
my savior in Luke one forty seven, she understood that
Jesus was the quote savior to grant repentance and forgiveness
of sins and Acts five point thirty one and in
Titus two nine to eleven, which included her own, Isaiah
forty nine twenty six describes God as savior and redeemer,
echoed in Glatians four four to five. He might redeem

(13:29):
or rescue from bondage those who were under the law,
because we, which includes Mary, have redemption the forgiveness of sins.
Lajn's one fourteen Psalm one thirty verse eight promises God
will redeem Israel from all its iniquities. Isaiah wrote that
deliver will come out of Zion, I will take away
their sins. This is how God as savior is used

(13:52):
in both Testaments. The Greek root is used in Matthew
one twenty one 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.

Speaker 7 (14:10):
The apostle.

Speaker 8 (14:10):
Paul affirms us in one Corinthians fifteen twenty two, and
Adam all die, meaning all of mankind spiritually, including Mary,
which Paul clarifies in verses forty seven to forty nine.
The first man, Adam is from the earth, earthy, the
second man long.

Speaker 4 (14:26):
As the rest of them have.

Speaker 9 (14:28):
And it's like seven minutes.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
Okay, yeah, I.

Speaker 4 (14:31):
Mean, I'm good to listen to the whole thing. I
do want to kind of hear his whole argument. I'm
more interested in sort of the back and forth in
terms of Yeah, the commentaries.

Speaker 9 (14:40):
The opening statements are a little long, but they start
going back and forth.

Speaker 4 (14:43):
I mean, as long as you guys are all cool
in the chat school, we just continue to listen to
this and hopefully you don't feel jyps redoubt content.

Speaker 6 (14:51):
Well my man, I was muted, but yeah, no. So
the opening statements are fifteen minutes long, but you kind
of need them to lay down everything. So essentially, what
Steve is doing here is saying, like, hey, based on
this language that we find in the septuagen versus the
maserratic text, right, whichever one you want to look at
these words appear to infer that Mary had other children,

(15:14):
which would contradict certain Catholic doctrines. Right, correct, that she
had no other children, that she remained pure for her
entire life. Right, So it's about ken are these the
correct usage of this? Is this the correct context? If so,
then does this contradict? Because this is the whole thing.
It's like, is there any contradictions? Right?

Speaker 9 (15:34):
Not?

Speaker 6 (15:34):
Is it? Is it possible? But is it contradictory? Which
is a much higher standard than just possible?

Speaker 9 (15:41):
Right?

Speaker 4 (15:42):
And for context, For those of you who are not
as familiar with the Maryan dogmas, it might be helpful
just to listen them out real quick. So as I
understand that there are four Mother of God. The immaculate conception, which,
contrary to sort of the ignorant popular belief, refers to Christ.
But that's not true. To the immaculate refers to Mary being

(16:02):
conceived immaculate, So she had no sin. I believe she
has no even original sin, the original sin, or any
sin afterwards, although some I know Jimmy A can put
out a video saying that you could, as a Catholic,
believe that she could have sinned after you know, in
her life like venial ly but didn't have any original
sin or something along those lines. I don't know if

(16:22):
that's an accurate restatement of Jimmy Aikin's position. Other Catholics
piled on him and said that he was wrong, So
I don't know the official stance on that. But the
immaculate conception I believe refers to Mary being born without
original sin, yes, correct. And then the perpetual virginity, which
means that Mary never had sex with Joseph after Christ. Mean,

(16:44):
everyone believes that Christ was conceived obviously of the father,
but then the Protestants tend to believe that Mary then
continued to go on and have many children by natural means,
whereas the perpetual virginity holds that she was completely virgin,
and it even holds to her physical virginity, meaning her

(17:05):
like it gets as specific as her hymen.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
Was, you don't know.

Speaker 4 (17:08):
The hymen is something that gets broken when you have
sex the first time as a woman. Her hymen was
intact after delivering Christ. So you explained that one.

Speaker 6 (17:21):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (17:21):
And then I mean it's not explainable except by miracle,
and so that's that's fine.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (17:26):
And then the assumption is the fourth and last one.
And I believe there is a infallible statement exe Cathedra
from the Pope about the assumption and essentially that yes, yep.

Speaker 6 (17:38):
Well, I think that's that's one of the two, right,
one of two or.

Speaker 4 (17:42):
Three, depending on Yeah, I think, what what are the
what's the other one? That's for sure?

Speaker 6 (17:47):
Assumption of Mary is for.

Speaker 4 (17:48):
Sure, right, but then there's there's not believe, and then.

Speaker 6 (17:51):
In the the Immaculate conception it's I think it's those
two statements.

Speaker 4 (17:56):
And then I think some people consider is it Who'm
on a vt? The contraception statement to be infallible as well,
or something along those lines. I think that one's sort
of a little bit more iffy if it's actually to
be considered infallible, but I think some Catholics do consider
that to be infallible. All right, Yeah, So the assumption

(18:17):
is that Mary the bodily assumption to marry, just like Elijah,
I mean, just like Christ or Enoch, some of these
different book figures who were lifted into heaven rather than dying.
And it is unclear I believe whether or not that's
pre death or post death. I think some people say

(18:38):
that she's so died of natural causes.

Speaker 9 (18:40):
The assumption is that it was upon the completion of
her earthly life, so post death.

Speaker 6 (18:45):
Okay, Okay, Well, I don't know how granular you want
to be there, because I believe some say that it
was like at the moment, like not after death, but
at the moment her life, at the moment of death.

Speaker 4 (18:58):
That so it's like assumption would end your natural human life. Yeah,
that seems perhaps open to debate.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (19:10):
But anyways, you that's there's the four Marion dogmas that
are being debated here. So uh, I don't know if
we missed a few minutes of the opening statement or
if we just launched right in, but that's.

Speaker 6 (19:19):
What he within the first five the first of it.

Speaker 4 (19:23):
I would appreciate a little bit more context from mister
Christy here, but uh, but yeah, so far, he's.

Speaker 6 (19:27):
Just data that might have actually been in the intro
statement from Matt Frad that we skipped over what the
debate was actually on.

Speaker 4 (19:36):
So sure, well, and then Trent Horn. The way that
Trent Horn debates is he always starts by framing the
discussion and he always does this whole thing about who
has the burden of proof, and so I'm sure we'll
get more context from Trent when he jumps in as well.
So he has a very predictable debating style.

Speaker 8 (19:53):
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

(20:15):
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 were translated all Posts
translated everyone, which includes Mary in her conception, but obviously

(20:38):
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 two twenty one.

(21:02):
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 Mary's days of purification were
completed in Luke two, she made burnt and sin offerings, which,
according to Leviticus twelve, was required of mothers to make.

Speaker 6 (21:28):
I didn't say nothing can keep going my man, I
thought somebody said pause.

Speaker 9 (21:33):
I had a stringer when I spit, and.

Speaker 8 (21:38):
A 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 the Ninth but not
ex Cathedra in eighteen fifty four, and is not shared
by the Eastern Orthodox, despite not schisming with the West
until the eleventh century, demonstrating that this was a much

(21:58):
later development for to the New Testament writers and the
Early Church has that Catholic answers the first.

Speaker 4 (22:05):
I didn't catch that point, so is one of those
one of the four dogmas not accepted by the Orthodox Church.
Is that what I understood?

Speaker 9 (22:12):
Take it back. I don't know, maybe like fifteen seconds
or so.

Speaker 8 (22:15):
Three Really This dogma was defined by Pope Pious the
ninth but not ex Cathedra in eighteen fifty four and
is not shared by the Eastern Orthodox, in which one.

Speaker 9 (22:27):
Of the immaculate conception very purification, were completed.

Speaker 8 (22:31):
In looked two, she made berth and sin offerings, which,
according to Leviticus twelve, 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 Pious the ninth but not ex
Cathedra in eighteen fifty four, and is not shared by

(22:51):
the Eastern Orthodox, despite not schisming with the West until
the eleventh century.

Speaker 6 (22:56):
Demis right, So that's the amaculate conception of Mary, which
was by Pius the ninth in eighteen fifty four, which
apparently m So if that was a Catholic hell position
before then, right? Or was that just declared in eighteen
fifty four that was declared normally?

Speaker 4 (23:15):
These are pretty old traditions, but question for the Chat
for the Orthodox. In the Chat, do Orthodox hold to
all four of the dogmas or just some? You can
keep going.

Speaker 8 (23:30):
Okay, wonstrating that this was a much later development foreign
to the New Testament writers and the early Church. Catholic answers.
The firms 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

(23:52):
sinless forr entire life. Yet evidence of her sinful nature
was her lack of exemption of the temporal penalty of death,
death passed on to her from Adams. While the wages
of sin is death refers to spiritual death, that is.

Speaker 7 (24:06):
The second death.

Speaker 8 (24:07):
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,

(24:29):
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 Pious

(24:49):
of twelfth and nineteen fifty, 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 to dust.

(25:13):
The earliest source sharing in this view that she died
first is from the dor Mission. 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
Robertson Jenis, President of Catholic Apologetics International, unlike Jesus ascension,

(25:37):
assumptions in the Bible are under the power of God,
not the individual being assumed. Hebrews eleven five 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 to eleven, Elijah went up by a
whirlwind to heaven, meaning he did not see death either

(25:57):
before being assumed to heaven.

Speaker 7 (25:59):
Since his this.

Speaker 8 (26:00):
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 of scripture, as the dogma of

(26:23):
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,

(26:48):
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 KYL Keating wrote quote, there is
none in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism understanding that these
three Catholic Marion dogmas contradict Scripture. Has twofold importance. One

(27:10):
the sole non falsifiable and fallible authority of the Roman
Catholic Church, Sola Ecclesia, which teaches these Marion dogmas versus
the sole infallible authority of scripture Sola 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 Breed's scripture regarding her bodily

(27:32):
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 complete from the divining Catholic faith.
It is forbidden to any man to change is 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

(27:54):
and Paul. Regarding the Immacula 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
stained of original sin. Is a doctrine revealed by God,
and therefore to believe firmly and constantly by.

Speaker 7 (28:10):
All the faithful.

Speaker 8 (28:11):
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 Mary and 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

(28:33):
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.

Speaker 10 (28:51):
Thank you, Steve, thank you very much. That was a
really well articulated opening, states I appreciate it.

Speaker 4 (29:00):
So thoughts on that, guys.

Speaker 9 (29:02):
I just wanted to go back and answer your question
about the what dogma the Orthodox accepts? They do not
accept the immaculate conception and the assumption.

Speaker 4 (29:11):
Interesting, yes, so obviously THEO tocos and then what's the
other one I'm missing there that could.

Speaker 9 (29:21):
Say perpetual virginity.

Speaker 4 (29:23):
Perpetual Yes, right, they still believe in that.

Speaker 9 (29:26):
Okay, gotcha, yep, okay, all right, fair enough?

Speaker 4 (29:30):
Uh and yeah, a couple thoughts there at the end.
I means to one, I think that the standard of
this debate is very high for Christy, and so I
think that's probably what Arnt is going to rely on
the most. I'm sure that he'll he'll frame this in
a second here, But to say that it contradicts is
is a very high standard because if you can interpret

(29:54):
it in such a way that it doesn't contradict, then
then you can say that it doesn't contradict I think
that the data in some ways does seem to go
against it, but I'm not even sure that I would
go so far. At least if I was primed to
wait for myself, I wouldn't want to hold myself to
that high of a standard.

Speaker 9 (30:10):
I think that.

Speaker 4 (30:12):
My rejection of the Marion dogmas is because of my
solo scripture background, right, if that's what I rely if
that's all that I think that I can rely on,
then I'm not going to rely on the Marian dogmas
as being true. And then the just total lack of
evidence in scripture seems to reinforce the idea that not

(30:35):
only is it not reliable, but it probably shouldn't be
even practice out of a sense of piety. Unlike some
Anglo Catholics, they will still believe in the Marian dogmas,
or at least.

Speaker 10 (30:44):
Some of them.

Speaker 4 (30:45):
I don't know if they believe in all of them,
but out of a sense of piety and an Appelture tradition.
But they don't see it as being required or as
reliable as stuff that's directly revealed in scripture. So I
wouldn't go that far in terms of holding to them
as sort of a pious belief. But I do think that,
and I do think that you can make the argument
that it contradicts, and I think that it's a I

(31:08):
think it's a reasonable argument. It's just a very high
standard to hold yourself to in a debate like this, John,
what do you think?

Speaker 6 (31:17):
Damn? Sorry, I forgot I was meeted again. So yeah, one,
it is a very high standard. I agree with that.
I'm curious though, because the argument that is going to
come up is the argument from silence, which is essentially that, well,
no church father ever preached against it, and so this
was always the accepted belief. That is what you will hear,
generally speaking, which is why you usually don't have any third, fourth,

(31:40):
fifth century or earlier texts about the assumption of Mary.
Not until the sixth century do you find texts that
reference it directly, and those are actually Gnostic texts, which
are not even accepted by the Catholic Church. However, the
argument from Trent, or usually Catholic defenders, is some sort
of argument from silence, was that this was so well

(32:03):
accepted that nobody questioned it or felt the need to
write it down or anything else like that. So I
think that that is going to come up in this debate.
The second point just question, So, if we're gonna make
an ex cathedra binding statement where everyone who has any disagreement,
like quite explicitly, any disagreement with it is condemned to hell,

(32:26):
shouldn't the standard for that statement be based in, if
not scripture, like some pretty explicit references. Because that's that's
I mean, if we're gonna it's one thing to say, Okay,
this is what we believe, but it's another thing just
to go the extra step and being like this is
a a dog man ex cathedral statement, like quite literally,

(32:47):
you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. You will have
the entire weight of God and the saints.

Speaker 4 (32:52):
Against or whatever an athma means, because Catholics will we'll
get a little bit.

Speaker 6 (32:57):
Well, but he was in that in that cathedral statement,
he was very explicit though, like you will be you
will be damned by by and remember this is an
ex cathedral statement, So this is infallible. This is an
infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. You cannot argue against it.
And within his ex cathedral statement, he's saying, if you

(33:17):
don't believe this, or if you say anything against it,
you get damned by God and all the saints.

Speaker 4 (33:23):
Can you pull up the wording of that. Yeah, I'm
curious now with the.

Speaker 6 (33:26):
Exactly Well, it was a few minutes ago that he
he quoted it in this, so I can either pull
it from the transcript or I can grab the.

Speaker 4 (33:33):
Expert I just kind of assumed that it was sort
of the typical anathemas that you'll seeing like the Council
of Trend and some of these other stores.

Speaker 6 (33:38):
But it was with it.

Speaker 4 (33:39):
If it's more explicit, yes, I guess if you.

Speaker 6 (33:41):
Could argue, if you could argue it wasn't within the
ex cathedral statement, but I mean it was part of
his saying right doctrines, and I believe that was the
one in eighteen fifty four. I have to look that up.

Speaker 4 (33:53):
Yeah, the silence argument is interesting because I I'm pretty
sure there's a decent amount of Platonic philosophy that goes
into some of the doctrine around the Marian dogmas. They
have to look into that a little bit further. So
I think that certainly the way that some of those
classics would argue for some of them would be on

(34:15):
philosophical grounds where they're saying that this must flow out
of necessity when you take into account these hoolenistic presuppositions.
So yeah, I don't know the fact that no one
was talking about it for or against, right, because there's
not much for either in the terms of the silence.
Is it just silence against it? I believe it's it's

(34:36):
silenced one way or the other. Is that correct, John
or Christian?

Speaker 6 (34:42):
I have the look well, right, So what they're saying
is too is nobody ever said that this wasn't the case?

Speaker 4 (34:47):
Yeah, I get that, but but no when I said
that it was the case either, right?

Speaker 6 (34:52):
Right? So I think it kind of goes both ways
in that it's right if you something referenced about, like
the Blessed Virgin Mary or something, but there's no counter
argument like, oh well she wasn't assumed. It's it's almost
like the claim is backdated fears like, so I am
going to be interested in hearing trendspargement on this.

Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (35:09):
The one other thing I want to say is the
Sola Ecclesia comment is interesting just because of some of
the the YouTube comment debates that I had with people
after the Solo Scriptura stream. Because I don't think that
Catholics officially their beliefs amount to sola ecclesia if they

(35:34):
follow more what I was establishing as sort of this
is three legged stool of where you have, you know,
the Christian God, scripture, and the Church as scriptures interpreter
as being the three axioms that you that you build from. However,
in talking to some of the Catholics in the Chat,
or even some of the Orthodox too in the comments,

(35:55):
it did seem like their theology was sola eclesia, where
they're they're pretty explicit about the reason why we have
scripture is because the Church gave us scripture, or the
reason why we can believe or you know, rely on
scripture at all is because the Church gave us scripture.
And I think that is a pretty untraditional perspective and
and goes a little bit too far. I think that

(36:19):
basically Catholics, even traditional Catholics, maybe especially traditional Catholics, don't
argue that scripture is scripture because the Church just declared it.
So it is more of a of a recognition of
the inspired word based on you know, the marks, based
on a number of things, based on the history, based
on the authorship. But it so it is a recognition,

(36:42):
not it's not that the church created the canon. I mean,
I even saw a thumbnail from a prominent Catholic apologist saying,
I mean the thumbnail. I didn't watch the entire video,
but the thumbnails certainly said the Church created the cannon.
And he was rebutting a West Huff video, So I
don't know if he got more nuance in that, But that,
as far as I understand, is not a correct statement,

(37:03):
even from a Catholic perspective. So once you start saying
things like that, then you really are you are arguing
for a solar ecclesia perspective, and I just think that
that's dangerous, certainly as dangerous as solar scripture, if you
think sol superior is dangerous. But it's yeah, I mean
even more so because now you're relying on a human institution.

Speaker 6 (37:25):
I don't know why it is so hard to find,
like the exact full quote from Pope Pious to ninth
on that, Okay, so I might actually have to find
it in his in his state view if you wanted

(37:48):
me to go back and find the transcript. I don't
know why it's so hard to just get the full text,
like I'm trying to google, Like, just give me the
exact same thing transcript. Actually, what was the word? What
was the word he used? Did he say damned.

Speaker 9 (38:12):
An immaculate with the conception? Yeah? Nothing gives you like
a word for word.

Speaker 6 (38:30):
It's so annoying because that's that's all I want to find,
is just give me the full quote that because I'm like,
where did you find the quote from? Mm hmm.

Speaker 9 (38:43):
Okay, we might have to go back into the video.

Speaker 6 (38:47):
Okay, well dare okay, so this is the quote that
he pulls up. So the pope declared infallably. If anyone
should dare willfully to deny that which we have to find,
let him know that he has fallen away completely from
the divine and Catholic faith. It is forbidden for any
man to change this or to oppose encounter it. If

(39:08):
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. Okay, the other pope declared, but not in fact,
so maybe that's not part of the infallible statement. Yeah, okay,

(39:33):
or actually I think it's the second the next statement
that's not infallible, but it's That's the complicated thing. Is
what is actually infallible or not? What part of this
like is it is it the entire because I think
it's infallibus dius? Is the actual and cyclical that he
wrote for it, Pope Us the ninth? Is it the
entire thing? Or is it only that this this this

(39:54):
simple quote that they have in here, like the three lines.
I'm not sure, but I'm ready. I'm ready to move
on if your.

Speaker 4 (40:04):
Yeah, I just quick question, do you know what the
what other criteria for a statement being ex cathedral? Does
the pope have to say it ahead of time like
this is an ex cathedral statement or can it later
be identified as one? Or how does that work?

Speaker 9 (40:24):
Well, that's a good question. I'm not too sure. I'd
have to look into that. Get back to you.

Speaker 6 (40:28):
Okay, Well ex cathedral is actually funny from the chair,
but yeah, well it needs Yeah, he has to be
sitting in a special chair to make the statement. Technically speaking, yes, exactly,
m M all right, we can go ahead. It's like
the Vicar of Christ, but only when he's wearing the
triple crown. That's another funny one.

Speaker 7 (40:48):
There we go and run on Tom, well done.

Speaker 10 (40:51):
If I could just yeah, yeah, yeah. I just want
to offer an encouragement for those who are watching in
the live chat or who watch this later. Give give
the person you disagree with 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

(41:11):
can better engage them and resist the temptation to attack
straw Man. So I think that was an excellent opening statement.
We're going to move to Trent now for his fifteen minute. Trent,
whenever you begin, I'll click the timer.

Speaker 11 (41:24):
All right, Noll 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
Mariyan 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

(41:44):
before I do that, let me explain what this debate
is not about the same formula everage. 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 solo scripture, I
don't have to these dogmas from scripture alone. And more importantly,
that's not what we're debating. In fact, Protestants believe in

(42:05):
many doctrines that are not found in scripture, like their
sixty six 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 Marian dogmas by claiming they don't appear
early enough in Church history to count as being Apostolic.

(42:26):
Of course, this objection becomes a problem for Protestants since
by this standard, many of their doctrines like solo scriptura,
eternal security, solo fide 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

(42:49):
or theological opinions about Mary, things like whether she's mediatrics
or coredemtrics. We're going to talk about the dogmas of
the faith, those that have been infallibly defined to be
part of divine revelation.

Speaker 2 (43:00):
So I'm going to cover four of them.

Speaker 11 (43:01):
Mary being the mother of God, ever virgin, immaculately conceived,
and bodily assumed in the heaven.

Speaker 2 (43:07):
All right, So let's take a look at them. First.

Speaker 11 (43:10):
There's a dogma of theotokos mary being the mother of God.
Anyone who denies this dogma automatically contradicts scripture. Because of
Jesus as God and Mary is the mother of Jesus,
it follows that Mary is the mother of God. What
about the other Mary and dogmas? In order to show
these dogmas contradict scripture, Steve must do one of two things.

(43:30):
On the one hand, he could show the Bible teaches
the opposite of these dogmas regarding Mary as an individual.
For example, of 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,

(43:53):
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.

Speaker 4 (44:07):
Would be falsified. So let's apply these.

Speaker 11 (44:09):
Standards to the remaining dogmas. Let's 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 he Not and Elijah were assumed into heaven. Now,
Steve has said, while they were assumed into heaven alive,
and if Mary died, she would not be assumed into heaven.
But that's not the case. Jude nine talks about the

(44:30):
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 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,
The fact that Mary died doesn't prove that she committed

(44:52):
a sin any more than the fact that Jesus died
does not prove that he inherited sin or commit That's
not a good argument at all.

Speaker 4 (45:00):
Wait, positive second, give me a break. The whole reason
Jesus died is because of sin, because of our sin.
But that's because of the whole subsidiariationary atonement. You can't
say that Jesus didn't die because of sin. Jesus died
as a direct result of sin. That's why he had
to die. I don't I do not know what trying
to make.

Speaker 6 (45:19):
I think his argument is not because of his own
personal sin. Right, So if if their argument is that
Mary was sinless for her entire life, just dying is
not a sign of.

Speaker 4 (45:29):
That argument only applies to Christ. I mean, Christ was
the only person who did not die because of his
own sin, because the only person that gets to partake
in this substitutionary atonement because he's God. You don't get
to do that with Mary. And they don't even try
to do that with Mary. So I don't Yeah, I
don't know. I mean Jesus died all death as a
result of sin, or at least all human death as

(45:51):
a result of sin Rice included.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (45:56):
Maybe there's some other doctrine that he's that he would
rely on, but but that point does not make sense.

Speaker 9 (46:03):
Go back fifteen seconds. I want to listen to it again.
If you don't mind, please.

Speaker 6 (46:05):
John Well, you said that they don't believe that. In
some circles she is the co redemtrics coredemtrics, I want
to say, which is actually does almost like a co
redeemer with Jesus. There are certain people who have believed
in that throughout history. So I mean prove.

Speaker 11 (46:26):
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 errant Mary was not assumed into heaven?

Speaker 2 (46:37):
No, of course not. If anything.

Speaker 11 (46:39):
Revelation chapter twelve, verses one through six 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 contra with Steve said,
this has been infallibly defined though before the ex Cathedras

(47:00):
statements of the First Vatican Council. But in his encyclical
mystick Ye Corporus Christi, Pope Pius the twelve 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?

Speaker 2 (47:17):
No, it doesn't.

Speaker 11 (47:18):
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

(47:39):
how God saves people from threats in this life by
exalting the lowly or feeding the hungry. God is mary
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. 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 secure curity and significance are found

(48:01):
in a God who would care about the broken and
poor enough to give himself to them.

Speaker 2 (48:05):
So here Mary could be.

Speaker 11 (48:06):
Talking about salvation from threats in this life, not sin,
and she doesn't mention sin in this part of Luke I.
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

(48:27):
after the infection. Now does the Bible teach that everyone
has sinned?

Speaker 1 (48:31):
Well?

Speaker 2 (48:31):
Actually, one other point I will bring.

Speaker 11 (48:33):
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 two
twenty two through twenty four 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

(48:54):
Jesus sinned as well. Rather, this is Mary simply being
obedient to the law, just as Jesus submitted himself to
be 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 three twenty three, all of

(49:15):
sin 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 twenty two, or in Romans
three nine, Paul says all men, both Jews and Greeks,
are under the power of sin. Paul is not trying

(49:36):
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 seven, sixteen.
It talks about a time before a child knows how

(49:56):
to refuse the evil and choose the good, that children
at a young age do not commit personal sins, reaffirms.

Speaker 4 (50:05):
I mean, but I know he's not denying original sin,
so I guess he's just saying that for all have
sinned in ball short of the blay of God. That
statement doesn't include original sin. That's only talking about the
sins that take place once you're of a age of
moral accountability. I don't know, it just seems like he's
making a lot of stretches here. I guess that's one

(50:28):
way to interact.

Speaker 6 (50:29):
I mean, you do have to play with the word
all right, because you cannot take all literally that in
that sentence. Yeah, because you have to say, well, that's
more referencing like people groups and Jews and gentiles and
those distinctions rather than just all people. A simple a
chud reading it if you will. I mean, all seems

(50:49):
like all like I you know, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (50:52):
The EXOGYESI just seems a little weak here. I get
the argument that, well, hey, all of sin and fall
short of the blowy of God, that at least doesn't
include Jesus. So we know that there's at least one
exception wife be in there be two. I mean, that
seems like the most cogent argument. I do feel like
you should allow Jesus exceptions that you don't allow anyone else.
I think that he is pretty exceptional in being the

(51:15):
god Man.

Speaker 6 (51:16):
But I mean find this kind of strange because it
seems to not downplay christ divinity but put somebody too
close I guess, right, Although I think I think Catholics
might make the argument that Mary was purified by Jesus

(51:36):
right by that that's yeah, mystical union or what I.

Speaker 4 (51:41):
Mean, you know, Mary salvation still comes through Christ. I
believe that's official Catholic teaching. Yeah, it and I'd looked
it up co redempstrics is not official teaching that you
have to accept as a Catholic, at least according to
it's it's accepted by which I do as well.

Speaker 6 (52:01):
Because yeah, I just grabbed a quote from Benedict the
fifteenth that says, so it can be rightly said that she,
together with Christ, has redeemed the human race. And that's
there are and there are twenty two sixteen nineteen nineteen
different quotes from different popes about the the co redemptrics

(52:23):
nature of Mary, which you know, maybe they're not dogmatic
yet they they very well could be. Yeah, I mean
all the way back to Leo the.

Speaker 4 (52:33):
Eighth, Yeah, yeah, and co redemptrics just makes me really uncomfortable.

Speaker 6 (52:41):
I mean that just I don't like this. This this
line to me, from a simple reading scripture, that she,
together with Christ, has redeemed the human race. That that line,
to me sketches me out a little bit.

Speaker 4 (52:55):
It just it just seems to go against everything any
statement that Christ makes about salvation or about you know,
whatever indications we have from scripture, from the Gospels and
from i mean, yeah, from the epistles, the entire New Testament,
when they talk about the mechanisms for salvation, which they're
not perfectly clear. We don't have a complete book on

(53:18):
exactly how salvation works or how it's assigned or accomplished.
Even we've had to figure some of this stuff out.
But when you look at Christ's words when he was
with us, he didn't say, you know, all come to
the Father through me and mom, it's like it's through me.
He talks about himself, and so it just seems like
an accretion. It seems like a later addition, and an

(53:40):
unjustified one at that.

Speaker 9 (53:47):
Yeah, I have to agree with Josie Wills here. I mean,
without Mary, there wouldn't be a Jesus. And Mary had
a part to play, so I'm not saying that her
actions led to everyone.

Speaker 6 (53:57):
But why I agree with that. But you can take
that argument back to King Day that you can say, well,
without David, you wouldn't have Jesus, So is David a
cot Smith. It's like, well, no, of course not. We
would never say that. We never said because David David
was an obviously flawed person, right explicitly, explicitly a flaw person.

Speaker 4 (54:13):
And that's why I feel about the whole you know,
blessed are you statement where it's like, well, yeah, obviously
she's extremely blessed. She's the mother of God, Like that's
a pretty fantastic role to play in this whole, you know,
world play that we're living. So I don't know, it
just seems like poetic And.

Speaker 6 (54:30):
I mean many many other people are called are called
blessed as well, so I don't think that simple. I mean,
obviously there's a fantastical title best of all Women, all
of those things, but I just don't get the inferred
sinlessness there from that specifically, or I would have to
be convinced of it, I suppose, and it seems like
it would take like a pretty explicit reference for that.

Speaker 9 (54:58):
This.

Speaker 11 (54:58):
In Romans nine to eleven, he says of Jacob and
Esau and 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,

(55:18):
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.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
No.

Speaker 11 (55:28):
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, you have 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.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
In fact, the.

Speaker 11 (55:48):
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 meet the exceptions that do occur
to these universal rules. For example, in Hebrews nine twenty seven,
it says that it is appointed for men to die
once and then face judgment. And this is true for

(56:12):
basically every single human being whoever 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 affirming. So to summarize, the Bible

(56:34):
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 he'd
only asked, does the Bible teach that Mary had sexual relations?

(56:57):
Now Steve mentioned and many other Protestants saluted Matthew one
twenty four through twenty five, 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 heos does
not always entail a reversal of condition. Tewod Samuel six

(57:19):
twenty three says Mekow, the daughter of Saul, had no
child two or haos the day of her death, which,
of course she did not have children after she died.
Jesus tells the Apostles in Matthew twenty eight twenty 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

(57:41):
present age comes to an end. Now, Steve said that
Matthew won twenty five, and others have said this based
off the doctoral work of Eric Spenson, that the Greek
construction heyus who in this verse always demands a reversal
of condition, always demand that, But that is not the case.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
The phrase.

Speaker 11 (58:07):
A man who varies throughout the septuagent or the Greek
Old Testament without implying any kind of reversal. It may
be used this way in Acts twenty five twenty one
to say that Paul was held in custody until he
was home, even by.

Speaker 4 (58:22):
My penis comment, I don't know if the chat actually
can hear, because sometimes it shows up to you guys,
but not to everyone else. But there was a very
loud muffler, that unmuffled car that went by.

Speaker 9 (58:31):
Oh we heard it.

Speaker 6 (58:32):
Yeah, you second.

Speaker 4 (58:34):
I've listened to these backs sometimes and the backgrod noics
has always come through to the audience. So I wasn't
talking about either the people on the nice people on
the screen. I'm sure they have large penises too, even
though he was still in Roman custody after that point.
Hayes Who was also used in literature that existed at
roughly the same time period as the New Testament, though
I will say the septuo agent was completed only within

(58:57):
a few centuries, possibly even one century, by the time
of Jesus's crucifixion, so we wouldn't be surprised that septuo
agental constructions would be used in the New Testament, including
the fact that heyus who 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

(59:19):
for mac in four maccabees to be an example where
the Jewish work Joseph and Asinoff.

Speaker 11 (59:24):
So while not common, it is used. So you can't
use Matthew one twenty five to prove Mary and Joseph
had sexual relations. Matthew is 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

(59:45):
one twenty five, 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 one twenty five bab and without justification. But maybe
are there other verses that have talked about that Mary

(01:00:07):
gave birth to other children and so she would not
be a perpetual version 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.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
We'll talk about Adelphos. Yeah, I will say, I think this.

Speaker 4 (01:00:27):
Is the strongest of the dogmas. This is the one
where that I think seems to have the most buy in.
Just sort of across the board, it does seem to
find the face of some just a plain reading of
these verses, and definitely a possible reading of the verses,
you have to read around what would be a easy

(01:00:48):
reading and a valid reading. I mean, that's the thing.
Can All that horn is saying is fine, but don't
let them make you think that it's an invalid reading
of these passages to think that Mary have kids afterwards,
that that brothers means brothers not cousins. I mean, that
would be a totally valid reading. Just looking at the
words that are used in the text, you can read

(01:01:08):
them in another way and that is also a valid reading.
If a slightly less likely reading, I mean, I'll let
you be the judge of that, and you can you
can judge from his arguments here, but I think that, yeah,
I think it. In terms of do those verses contradict
the dogma, I think Warren's probably right.

Speaker 10 (01:01:29):
They don't have to.

Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:01:31):
We're dealing with with language constraints, translation, time, context, and
they're both right, you know, in how they're saying this, Well,
it was used here like this, and it was used
over here like this, so possibly it means this, and
possibly it means this. So to get an explicit well,
actually you're wrong one hundred percent out of this is

(01:01:52):
very difficult on either side, very difficult.

Speaker 4 (01:01:56):
And whenever, as a Catholic, you can get John Calvin
and Martin Luther to agree with your position, and it's
probably a decent position.

Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
I would agree.

Speaker 11 (01:02:04):
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 brother of 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

(01:02:25):
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.

Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
To say here.

Speaker 11 (01:02:36):
Richard Bacham, for example, who rejects that Protestant scholar who
rejects the perpetual virginity of Mary, says it's strange Jesus
is called the son of Mary in Mark Sixt's three,
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

(01:02:57):
to represent full brothers. In Luke three to one, it's
used to describe Herod Antibus 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 two ten says Moses became the son of Pharaoh's

(01:03:18):
daughter even though she adopted him. So to summarize, then, Steve, well, actually,
let's see.

Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
Tod, I have one to think here.

Speaker 11 (01:03:27):
One other point that 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
Psalms sixty nine, where it says of the Messiah, I
have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to
my mother's sons.

Speaker 2 (01:03:43):
The Messianic psalms.

Speaker 11 (01:03:44):
Are applied to Jesus, but not in literal ways. For example,
in Psalms sixty nine to five, it says to the Messiah,
Oh God, thou knowest my folly. The wrongs I have
done are not hidden from me. So Steve would probably
say that, well, Jesus has sins, but there are sins
not his sins.

Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
Okay.

Speaker 11 (01:04:03):
Then Psalm sixty nine to five is applied non literally
to Jesus, and I would say p. Nine eight about
mothers and brethren is applied non literally as well. This
is the view that Saint Augustine said when he said
that in Psalm sixty nine to five, the mother is
not Mary but Israel, and the brethren are the other
sons of Israel who spurn him. In fact, so we

(01:04:24):
see here that Messianic psalms are often applied to Jesus
in non literal ways, so just because to be fair,
I guess.

Speaker 4 (01:04:32):
In his whole method of reading scripture was much more
in the anagogical camp, where he would read it for
metaphors and for analogies and for the spiritual meaning, not
necessarily the literal meaning as much. So there were kind

(01:04:55):
of two different camps, and the Western Church tended.

Speaker 2 (01:04:59):
To be a lot more or.

Speaker 4 (01:05:02):
A lot more metaphorical in their reading, whereas I believe
the the in the early times the Eastern Church had
a more literal reading, if I'm not mistaken. So like
I mean, if you look back at even Origin, who
kind of is in some way as the father of
biblical exegesis in the Christian sense, I don't think he

(01:05:23):
ever found a piece of wood in the Old Testament
that he didn't exegete as being a type of the cross.
So it's very common to read into Old to estiment
Old Testament passages with metaphors and imagery and so not
the most reliable exegesis. And in a modern sense of.

Speaker 11 (01:05:41):
The term, this song talks about my mother's sons. It
doesn't imply that Mary gave heir to other children. So
ultimately Steve has the burden here to show that the
maryon dog was contradict 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.

Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
Up in my next rebuttal period.

Speaker 10 (01:06:05):
All right, thank you very much, Trent. I would like
to demand that everybody hit that like button right now.

Speaker 9 (01:06:12):
I command that you do it.

Speaker 10 (01:06:14):
Submit to my authority. I've crowned myself king and I
demand it to do it. Do it right now, do it, well,
don't do it. This is fantastic. I'm really enjoying this,
maybe a little too much. We're going to move into
seven minute rebuttals. Steve, whenever you want to begin or
click the timer.

Speaker 7 (01:06:32):
Okay, can you hear me?

Speaker 10 (01:06:36):
Yep, we can hear you, yes, okay.

Speaker 8 (01:06:37):
I just want to make sure, okay, you can start now.
The purpose of that this debate, as Trent had brought up,
is about the Mary and Dogmas. However, prior to this debate,
and I had agreed not to talk about Mary being
referred to it as the Mother of God because it's
not really an issue that we disagree on as long
as it has understood how it was originally meant to

(01:06:58):
be a chrystological title and not a specific title of Mary,
such as being Queen of Heaven, so I'm not going
to comment on that. 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

(01:07:20):
John twenty twenty eight when Jesus sees Thomas sees Jesus
and calls him my Lord and my God. 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 a dogma of Jehovah's witnesses on the identity

(01:07:42):
of Jesus. While scripturally affirming Jesus is the son of God,
they contradict scripture by claiming that Jesus is Michael the
arch angel, because scripture affirms Michael is a created being
while Jesus is the eternal deity. And this is what
I did in the opening statement. When the Bible talks
about all have sinned and fall short of the glory

(01:08:03):
of God. As I mentioned my opening statement, it's a
Greek word pass which means everyone, which would include Mary.

Speaker 7 (01:08:10):
There is no exception there.

Speaker 8 (01:08:11):
When when Trent tries to use this argument, he's using
a logical thought fallacy referred to as the argument by exception.
And of course he might say, well, what about Jesus. Well,
as I mentioned, the Bible is explicit that says that
Jesus is an exception. It says that, actually, I believe
in First Corinthians Trent had mentioned about.

Speaker 4 (01:08:33):
The stronger argument there Eliah. I do like the argument
that Trent makes. I think he talked about another verse
that say all have died, and then he talks about
the fact there are people that we're pull up in
heaven without dying, and so it doesn't feel the need
to mention the exceptions in that case. Apply that same
ex Jesus to the all have sense statement. I think
that is a strong case. So just to play Devil's avovate.

Speaker 8 (01:08:58):
Here and Enoch being assumed heaven, but again like it
says they were assumed bodily into heaven, but they did
not have they they had they had an inherited original sin,
just as Mary did. But anyways, I'm gonna come back

(01:09:21):
to that he had had mentioned about in the Book
of Jude, about Moses and and the devil contending for
the body of our Michael, and and contending with the
body of Moses with uh with with Michael archangel. But
it doesn't say anything about him being bodily assumed or anything.

(01:09:45):
The other thing about Jesus is, yes, Jesus did not sin,
but the Bible says that he took on sin, which
is different than actually inheriting sin, because again he is
he is conceived by the Holy Spirit, unlike Mary, who
is actually conceived in sin. As far as Revelation chapter
one to six, I don't see anything that's in there

(01:10:06):
that talks about Mary. This is an example of is
of Jesus and known as a typology that's that's used
a lot of times by Catholic apologists. I had mentioned
about the Maculate conception not being declared ex cathedra because
this was before Vatican One in eighteen seventy that declared

(01:10:29):
that when a pope declares something ex cathedra, you know,
then it's considered. Then it's considered infallible, but the immaculate
conception was declared fifteen years or so before that. Trent
had mentioned about Mary in her magnificat, saying God my Savior,

(01:10:50):
and she was referring back to hand.

Speaker 7 (01:10:54):
But again this we're.

Speaker 4 (01:10:56):
Getting some debate in the chat about the church fatherly
status of Origin and Tertullian. Just to weigh in on
that a little bit, I do think that they're both
extremely important figures. I mean, Tertullian coined the phrase trinity.
He coined the phrase persona. This actually mean a lot
of people don't realize is that the term person comes

(01:11:17):
from this word persona, that origin coined to describe the
threeness of the Trinity. So when we talk about like personhood,
this concept of personhood is actually derived from this concept
of God and his threeeness, which is just fascinating before.
Persona is a new word that Tertullian coined. He pulled

(01:11:41):
it from a word that probably kind of meant like
a mask, So it has an interesting origin. It's not
clear exactly what Tertullian meant, but in the end it's
sort of it just stands in as a word to
substitute for this concept that we don't fully understand, and
then all of our concepts of personhood are developed later.

(01:12:04):
But Tertullian made some big mistakes, and he seemed to
have fallen into a heretical sect towards the end of
his life, and it's unconfirmed what happened to him after that,
and so that's why he is often not considered He's
certainly not considered a doctor of the church. Church father
is perhaps more of a contested statement. I think Protestants

(01:12:24):
would tend to consider him a church father on the
basis of all the contributions that they made, if nothing else.
Origin is complicated as well, because he made some pretty
heretical statements, but he was also he made those statements
before the heresies had been defined as heresies, so you
can't really blame him for that. But because of a
few statements that he's made, he's also not considered a doctor,

(01:12:47):
meaning his teachings are not held up to that kind
of a reliable standard. And I think they even consider
him perhaps not a church father in that sense. Father
is a little bit more of an ambiguous term, I think,
But yeah, both there are reasons why both those teachers
have been approached with caution and should be approached with caution.

(01:13:08):
Although Tertullian's Tertullian didn't get a lot of love until
Augustine rehabilitated him. And that's where I think even Catholics
shouldn't just throw Tertullian out. You have to account or
take into account what he says, because Augustine seemed to
like Tertullian's arguments a lot, and Augustine is a doctor
of the Church, so he was a bit of a

(01:13:31):
grump and a lot of people didn't much like him.
They didn't like the way they argued, and they thought
that he and then he did sort of seem to
go a little bit off, and so it was many
centuries later that Augustine kind of rehabilitated him in terms
of how the Catholics thought about him.

Speaker 8 (01:13:45):
Interesting, this is another argument by exception, because even if
she's referring back to Hannah, we have the bait is
about how these 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,

(01:14:08):
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 five and the
Epistle of Titus. And again what I had argued in
the opening statement, is there any example in the New

(01:14:31):
Testament where Jesus is referred to as a preemptive savior
as opposed to as a redemptive and redeeming savior, And
he's not so? Again, argument by exception. I had mentioned
about the word all pass all have sin and fall
short of the glory of God, and Trent had mentioned
about the age of accountability good because you know what,
if you're unbaptized, PA, baby dies and they're not baptized,

(01:14:54):
guess what they go into the glory of God.

Speaker 7 (01:14:57):
So I agree with that.

Speaker 8 (01:14:58):
As far as the original sin, if you you look
at Catholic dot 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 of the bodily assumption in nineteen fifty

(01:15:18):
strongly implies, this demonstrates Mary inherited original sin from Adam
Trent mentioned about dying once. Well, again, this is the exception,
This is not the rule. 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

(01:15:39):
only states that Jesus was an exception to this because
he was had a divine name.

Speaker 4 (01:15:44):
That's a really good point, going back to my common
earlier about there being exceptions that all have died statement,
he's ruining that you're budding that right here. All the
exceptions that we have to that statement of all have
died are pretty clearly called out in scripture, whereas Mary
being an exception to the all of sin statement is
not called out in scripture. And so I don't know

(01:16:05):
if that quite means the contradiction threshold, but that is
a cogent argument against that point from Horn.

Speaker 6 (01:16:14):
Now, I'm always curious about this because post Gospels, I
think Mary's only mentioned twice in the rest of the
New Testament, and so how important she seems in the
Catholic Church and in some cases the Orthodox Church today
doesn't seem to be present in like the most important

(01:16:36):
documents that we have from Peter, Paul, John, so on
and so forth post Christ's death, which is just an
argument from silence, right, So it's the same thing. You
can throw it back. It's like, well they never said
it wasn't important, right, But I'm just curious about that.

Speaker 9 (01:16:52):
So the argument is just lack thereof of any proof
or statement essentially, so there's nothing there saying that essentially
there that she wasn't she wasn't sinless.

Speaker 6 (01:17:03):
But yeah, well well not even do that, but just
that that there, there's not even like a mention almost.
I think it's I think it's literally twice post Gospel
in the statement, in.

Speaker 4 (01:17:14):
The statement the pope made condemning people for not accepting
that he called invoke the name of Peter and Paul,
I believe in that statement. It's like, but Peter and
Paul never talk about Mary in the epistles that they wrote,
that we have recorded that we continue to be inspired,
So that it just feels like you got to have
more to go on to make that kind of a statement.

Speaker 6 (01:17:33):
And that's another thing where I got interesting about, like
praying to Mary and praying to the saints, is that's
also something that is is you could infer that from
Revelation and from a passage in Amos, but it's only
like two little references rather than like, hey, guys, make
sure in your daily things you're asking x y z

(01:17:53):
saints for x y z think right, Like intercessory prayer, Like,
that's another thing where I'm like, I just feel like
if there was morels, like because I would love all
Christians to be under one banner, but if it was
just more explicit, it would be so much simpler.

Speaker 4 (01:18:06):
Right, to be fair, some of those might be a
little bit more Like, I know, purgatory has a little
bit more weight if you read the dudocnon I don't
know that.

Speaker 6 (01:18:14):
But even the Orthodox don't. Even they have the Dudo
canon as well, but they don't believe in purgatory.

Speaker 4 (01:18:21):
Yeah, well there you go.

Speaker 9 (01:18:23):
Well that's another thing we'd get into, is intercession and
purgatory as well. But yeah, not.

Speaker 4 (01:18:28):
Bedestriant, no.

Speaker 8 (01:18:31):
Nature as well as a human nature. But Mary only
had a human nature and a sinful nature. Trent I
made the comment about the word until that's used in
Second Samuel, but it uses the word haos, not haos
who same with Matthew twenty eight. It uses haos not
Haos who he mentioned about the Septuagent, Well, the Septuagent
was a Greek translation that was established around finished from

(01:18:56):
one thirty four BC. So we're not talking about translation
of the Bible. We're talking about what's actually used in
the New Testament.

Speaker 7 (01:19:04):
Because even the New Testament writers.

Speaker 8 (01:19:06):
Would deviate from the set Tuagen occasionally because they would
use a better translation. Lutheran Calvin I would expect that
they were both Catholic.

Speaker 7 (01:19:15):
We have to remember that.

Speaker 8 (01:19:17):
As far as the Delphos, I don't have a problem
with the word to Deelphos. But my question is why
would you abandon its primary meaning for another translation, for
another meaning when it doesn't demand it. And my focus
was on the word at delphe which Trent really didn't
focus on on his opening statement. He might bring it
up in his rebuttal and I'm curious you use a

(01:19:38):
comment about Jesus being the son of Mary. So does
that mean that Mary could have had daughters? Because it
says the son of Mary. And as far as Psalm
sixty nine, if.

Speaker 10 (01:19:47):
You can finish your thought, if you want real quick, Steve.

Speaker 8 (01:19:51):
Okay, And basically if false Psalm sixty nine, if you
continue reading it says that 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.

Speaker 7 (01:20:04):
So I'll leave it at that.

Speaker 10 (01:20:06):
Thank you, Steve Trent. Whenever you begin, I'll click the
time you have seven?

Speaker 11 (01:20:12):
All right, Well, a lot to cover here, Let's see
how much we can get through. So Steve is saying
that the word adelphae, which means sister, it can only
mean figurative sister or biological sister. So if Jesus has adelphe,
he must have had sisters who were born of Mary.
As I said before, these could be adoptive siblings. And

(01:20:35):
Steve has not ruled that out. And also Greek scholars
do not rule that out. Richard Bockham, for example, says,
the word adelphe who he's an eminent Greek New Testament scholar,
need not, if I understand correctly, second half sister. So
the word brothers can be interpreted as sisters. But he's
saying that the word sorry, the word brothers can be
interpreted as cousins, but the word sisters that's used can't

(01:20:57):
be interpreted other than sister, whether biological or adopted or
maybe even half or yeah, from a previous marriage.

Speaker 4 (01:21:05):
Is that what he's saying. Basically, it is just sister.
It doesn't have that similar comment cousin.

Speaker 6 (01:21:13):
Well, and again, if you're if we're going to have
the standard is explicit contradiction within scripture, you have to
be very very touchy with the words, right, So you
have to try and nail down a definition of adelphae.

Speaker 4 (01:21:26):
Yeah, interesting point. I've never heard that before. That's a
different Adulphe is used differently than than the word for brothers, stepsister,
sister in law. The Greek grammarian Bill Mounts, who writes
a whole textbook on ancient Greek says that adelphae means sister,

(01:21:46):
near kinswoman, or female relative. When it comes to Hayes
who I already showed that in both in the Septuagint
and also in contemporary literature, it does. It does not
require a reversal of condition, so it can be used
here in Matthew one twenty five in this way. And

(01:22:06):
I showed that when I cited Acts twenty one twenty
five 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
and one Corinthian seven.

Speaker 2 (01:22:21):
That's not true, Paul offers.

Speaker 11 (01:22:24):
He says in First Corinthians seven five through seven, 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 are ridiculous
the most chase.

Speaker 4 (01:22:45):
You can't make that argument. Paul is clearly saying that
if you're married, you should be having sex, maybe obstained
for a short period of time if you both agree
to it, but you should be having sex if you're married.
His statement about concession not and is saying that not
everyone has to get married. In fact, he would encourage
some people do not get married. I don't think you

(01:23:06):
can apply Paul's statement to within the conduct of marriage
abstaining from marriage. I mean, I think that's just outright sinful.
I think there is maybe an allowance for that in
the Catholic Church of non Basically like celibate marital unions.
You're not allowed to be impotent and get married, so

(01:23:28):
you have to be able to have sex, but you
don't actually have to exercise that right in the Catholic Church.
So I think that's consistent with Catholic teaching perhaps, But
in terms of using Paul's statement there as justification for that,
I think that's baseless.

Speaker 9 (01:23:47):
Correct me if I'm wrong, But didn't a lot of
the Apostles while they were going around the world doing
their their ministries like preach to remain celibent within marriage
as well, and in that lead to a lot of
their martyred being martyred as well.

Speaker 4 (01:24:00):
Well, I don't know, So what are you saying. You're
saying that some of the Apostles, Yeah, some.

Speaker 9 (01:24:05):
Of the Apostles after you just died, when they were
going and preaching the Gospel and whatnot, they went out
and they were starting people to remain celibate during their marriages,
and this led to a lot of them being martyred
by people in the in the places they went.

Speaker 4 (01:24:20):
And I could be back tooid that I'm not familiar with.

Speaker 9 (01:24:23):
Yeah, yeah, I could be wrong, but that's something I've
come across. I got to look into it more myself.

Speaker 6 (01:24:29):
But okay, yeah, because I mean Paul gives the one exception,
like James was saying, like, if you have to do
it for a time and both are agreed to it, perfect,
but you shouldn't. This shouldn't be the norm. And that's
pretty explicit from Polse writings.

Speaker 4 (01:24:43):
Within the contact of marriage. Yeah, the exception that he
was talking about is not he's making an exception for
getting married. I can't say that within marriage you should
be having sex. It seems pretty clear about that.

Speaker 9 (01:24:59):
I'm not denying that point at all.

Speaker 2 (01:25:01):
Offers.

Speaker 6 (01:25:02):
Yeah, well, yeah, I agree, because that that's what leads
to the temptation of cheating or anything else, right, because
you try to satisfy that it somewhere else rather than
the one place where you're allowed to do that in Christianity,
which is in the bounds of marriage, and.

Speaker 9 (01:25:16):
You combine are one flesh.

Speaker 11 (01:25:18):
So yeah, he says in First Corinthians seven five through seven,
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 would

(01:25:39):
have been the most chas holy family, this would not
apply to them. They can live out the Gospel teaching
and their unique holy family. This is something Paul gave
his concession, not as command to others. Luke two seven,
Steve said, well, look it says here that gen so.

Speaker 6 (01:25:55):
Is his argument there that family should be as Joseph
and Mary were, which is in his view, like no
copulation whatsoever.

Speaker 4 (01:26:07):
He's saying they're an exception. I don't think he's holding
them up as an example, but his statement would almost
seem to lend itself to that interpretation.

Speaker 6 (01:26:14):
Well, but if you call them the most holy couple, and.

Speaker 4 (01:26:18):
I think he's using that statement to indicate their acceptive nature.
But yeah, no, that would seem to mean that you
should use them as an example in your own life.
But this goes back to my big problem with the
perpetual virginity. And I understand that this is a very
old teaching and it's one that I think biblically is probably,

(01:26:41):
like I said, the most grounded, perhaps or the least
directly contradicted. But I think that it just makes Mary
out to be not a great wife because she was
married to Joseph, I mean really married, they were, I
mean the marriage was a real legiti marriage, even though

(01:27:02):
obviously Jesus did not come from Joseph at all. And yeah,
part of marriage is sex. If you're going to be
a good mom, a good wife, that's an important part.
And I think that the perpetual virginity teaching comes out
of an early Church error, erroneous view around sex which

(01:27:23):
has persisted to this very day. In terms of the
Church's teaching around celibacy as being a holier pursuit, where
they will still say to this day and argued very
explicitly early on that it is a holier lifestyle. It
is a more pleasing lifestyle, not just a different vocation,

(01:27:46):
but a better vocation to be a priest, to be celibate,
to sacrifice in that way. And you know, that's not
the topic of this dream, but I just see that
as practically being an issue and not being grounded in
scripture enough. But I think that that is the sort

(01:28:10):
of meta teaching in the air that led to a
requirement in the minds of early Catholics that Mary had
to be a virgin. It's like, if she is going
to be extra holy in order to be the mother
of God, then she must also have been a virgin.
And I think that a proper view of sex as

(01:28:31):
not being an icky thing, but being a good thing
instituted by God, a glorious thing, would make Christians think
differently about that. And so I think the fact that
you had this error floating around in the early Church
impacted how they viewed Mary. Jesus is the firstborn protodicos

(01:28:55):
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.

Speaker 6 (01:29:10):
John, your muted, damn it. I said, that's the first
heretical statement right there, because the first Pokemon movie is
actually very good.

Speaker 11 (01:29:18):
The Protestant biblical scholar Rictor Hamilton says, to say that
Jesus is Mary's prototicus 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 prototicus because
the term firstborn is later used in Luke two twenty
two through twenty three to talk about the purification right

(01:29:39):
and the right of the presenting those who are the
first born. So he's just talking about this birthright that
he mentions about ten verses later. Now Steve says, well,
Luke would have used monogaes only begotten.

Speaker 2 (01:29:53):
No, that's not the case.

Speaker 11 (01:29:54):
Luke does use Monoganes to talk about the death of
one's only child, for example, diferent 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 be gotten
and first born are used interchangeably. We see this in
Zachariah twelve ten, where it talks about they look on

(01:30:16):
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 address Psalm sixty five, But Steve said, well,
the sins are applied to Jesus in non literal way right,

(01:30:37):
but those that says in Psalms sixty nine to five.
But the Messiah, oh God, thou knowest my folly. The
wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee. But
Jesus did not do any wrong. So my point here
is clear. If this verse in Psalm sixty nine 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 sixty nine to

(01:30:58):
twenty five. It says in the pearl may there can't
be a desolation, Let no one dwell in their tents.
This is later applied in Acts one twenty, 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 three when she and

(01:31:19):
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 described here in Mark chapter three.
That's just being read into the text. When it comes
to savior, I would just challenge Steve, where does Luke
one forty six through forty eight talk about sin, it

(01:31:43):
doesn't mention sin there, and most commentaries agree that this
passage parallels what Hannah says in First Samuel two to one,
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

(01:32:05):
say that, there's there's no contradiction.

Speaker 2 (01:32:06):
In it's saying that.

Speaker 11 (01:32:09):
You talked a little about an Adam all die. But
notice here there are exceptions. You know, go 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.

(01:32:31):
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.

Speaker 4 (01:32:50):
Of this debate because base debate. This debate is only
in the context of scripture, so I don't know he's
reaching outside the bounce.

Speaker 10 (01:32:59):
Of the.

Speaker 11 (01:33:04):
Finally, the point about Mary dying. I think Steve was
really missing this here. The fact that Mary died does
not show that she had original sin, or that she
inherited original sin, or that she committed a personal sin.

Speaker 2 (01:33:16):
It does not show that.

Speaker 11 (01:33:17):
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

(01:33:39):
he still had a mortal human nature that could be
subject to death, and the same is true for Mary.
So Mary being assumed into heaven dying, which is the
majority view among theologians does not show that she had sin,
so the assumption and the immaculate conception are not contradicted
in that respect, and then hopefully in my next I'll

(01:34:00):
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 Mary and dogmas contradicted.

Speaker 10 (01:34:13):
Okay, thank you very much, Trent. We now are going
to have four minute rebuttals, then there's going to be
a time of cross examination, and then we're going to
do thirty minutes of Q and A. So to everybody
who's watching, please stick around. I think it says a
lot about y'all that you would take your time, all
seven hundred and thirty five of you, to be here.
I think gets really terrific. So, yeah, this is awesome,
This is really great, really enjoying this, all right, Steve,

(01:34:35):
whenever you begin, I let me actually just give me
one second. I will click the four minute mark.

Speaker 7 (01:34:42):
Okay, As I.

Speaker 8 (01:34:44):
Had mentioned about the Greek word ad al fay, let
me remind everyone that this is about what scripture actually teaches,
and to remind that the septuagen is a translation, it
is not considered inspired. If it was, the New Testament
writers would not deviate from it ca asually and use
their own Greek translation. It's a good Greek translation. The
New Testament writers used it, that they did not use

(01:35:06):
it universally for that reason. And again what I argued
is how adelphe 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 adel fay
in the Old Testament, when it's used, it's used, even

(01:35:29):
in a translation, not to mean anything other than a
biological sister or a believing sister like the sister Nations
of Israel and Judah. Trent had mentioned about what could
mean sister in law. Well, the apostle John actually quoted
from the Old Testament from the Septugin frequently, and if

(01:35:51):
he had meant sister in law, such as Mary's sister
in John chapter nineteen, he would have utilized the Greek
word sin nymphos that's used in the Book of Ruth
describe ORPA's relationship with Ruth. And again, just to give
an example, in the Septuagent in the Book of Sirac,
which is inspired for Trent, but it's not inspired for me.

(01:36:12):
It uses the Greek word kkre tomino, which is a
masculine form of kkre tomini when it says 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 emactically conceived, because there are those
Catholic answers and elsewhere who thinks k mano our mainate

(01:36:33):
means that they were always in a state of grace,
meaning that Mary was sinless. One 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 do not get tempted by
Satan because of your lack of self control. And the

(01:36:53):
fact that Trent is saying that this the Holy Family
would not need to apply to that, he's imputing his
Catholic theology into the text, so let's stick with it.

Speaker 7 (01:37:02):
Scripture actually supports trotonicas.

Speaker 8 (01:37:05):
I don't have a problem with with with the term
meaning first out of the womb. But in Luke Chapter two,
verses twenty two to twenty three, this is a different event.
This is a separate event than from what Luke is
talking about earlier. In Luke to chapter chapter two, verse seven,
he's simply talking about Jesus being the firstborn. And again,

(01:37:27):
if he meant only child, he would have he would
have used it like he used he would have used
monogamies like he used it elsewhere in Luke's Gospel Mark
chapter three. Even though it doesn't explicitly state that these
are Jesus' siblings, the Greek word literally means to be

(01:37:49):
the like of that individual. Again that's the view of
John Crossostom. The word savior 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 going in that direction, which

(01:38:12):
I don't think it is. One Corinthians fifteen. In my
opening statement, it says that there are heavenly bodies and
earthly bodies, and people who have earthly bodies are son
perishable meaning coruptible in dishonor meaning contempt reproach. Mary had
this early body, and so before she could go into

(01:38:34):
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.

Speaker 10 (01:38:47):
All right, thank you very much, Steve. Okay, Trent, whenever
you begin, I will click your time for.

Speaker 2 (01:38:57):
Al righty oh wow? This sure is fun, isn't it.

Speaker 11 (01:39:02):
So it's nice to be able to go through all
of these scripture passages, though, I will say, as we're
going through them, I feel like Steve's case is sort
of like that tree in front of my house. As
a bush, I'm always trying to get just right by
the 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

(01:39:23):
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 adel Fay.
I think Steve would agree with me that in general,
what that word means in scripture is that you have

(01:39:44):
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 septuagen to talk about people who have different fathers
and mothers, it is only ever used to describe people
in the case of half siblings, of having different fathers,

(01:40:06):
not you know, of having different fathers, not different mother
or sorry, let me let me go back a little
bit here with this. The point I want to raise
there is that adelphe has the same semantic range as Adelphos.
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 three to one.

(01:40:29):
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 are Richard Bacham, who agree with me that Adelphae
has a broader semantic range than what Steve Is brought
up here. I didn't talk about sister in law. I

(01:40:49):
was so citing Bacham on that point, and somen infhos
is just not used in the New Testament, so it's
just not a common word.

Speaker 2 (01:40:55):
We wouldn't expect it. I didn't bring up kikara to
Mane if you want to go more into that.

Speaker 11 (01:41:00):
My book The Case for Catholicism as 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 it's use in the
Book of Sirax. 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.

(01:41:23):
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. Off 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 were talking about salvation from sin.
But I would say, read the context. What is Mary

(01:41:45):
talking about in Luke one. 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 save, then it still fits the context.

Speaker 2 (01:41:59):
No contradiction there at all.

Speaker 11 (01:42:02):
First, Corinthians fifteen talks about heavenly bodies and that Mary
is given.

Speaker 9 (01:42:09):
Well.

Speaker 11 (01:42:09):
I think what Steve 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.

(01:42:29):
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
Flipping three twenty one that says our bodies, lowly bodies
will be transformed like his heavenly body Christ. So once

(01:42:51):
again we've gone through a lot of scripture here, but
none of them stick and show that the Mary and
dogmas are contradicted by the Bible in any way.

Speaker 10 (01:43:00):
All right, thank you very much, Trent. We are going
to be moving into a time of cross examination where
each debate will get ten minutes each. But before we
do that, I want to say thank you to our sponsor.

Speaker 2 (01:43:12):
Hello.

Speaker 10 (01:43:13):
Click the link in the description below to go through
to the Greatest for that today fight All so a
month worth?

Speaker 6 (01:43:22):
I want to sixty listen. I'm sure Howard is a
great service. Okay, check it out. Use code frad right
say ten percenter to get a free three month trial.
I'm sure it's great. The Council of Trench. That's different.
That's different. The Council of Trench.

Speaker 4 (01:43:38):
Oh dear, now, we don't want that.

Speaker 10 (01:43:41):
Percent of people have submitted to my regality.

Speaker 2 (01:43:44):
We still look.

Speaker 10 (01:43:45):
We got seven hundred and thirty seven people watching, and
only four hundred andninety two likes, what what.

Speaker 6 (01:43:49):
Am I to do with this?

Speaker 10 (01:43:51):
After all I've done for you? And you just sit there,
you watch this, you don't click that thumbs.

Speaker 6 (01:43:54):
Up, but he's literally appeal to.

Speaker 9 (01:43:58):
This.

Speaker 10 (01:43:59):
Now going to move into ten minute rebuttals, we'll start
with you, Steve. You've got ten 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 ten

(01:44:22):
minute button.

Speaker 4 (01:44:23):
Can you pass it for a second?

Speaker 7 (01:44:24):
Heay Trent in your recent podcast, of course, before.

Speaker 4 (01:44:27):
We jump into this. So, Christian, what do you think
about all this so far?

Speaker 9 (01:44:33):
I mean from a sola scriptura point of view, Yeah,
there isn't a lot of evidence to back up the
Catholic dogmas, but there also isn't a lot of evidence
to refute the dogmas either, So that's kind of where
I'm at.

Speaker 4 (01:44:47):
Yeah, I think that while it does seem to me,
in my non objective position that Christy is I don't know,
and to some degree, owning Trent on the scripture, I
think Trent's right. I think that I'm not sure that
Christy has quite met the threshold of contradicts yet.

Speaker 9 (01:45:07):
So yeah, I've never actually watched Trent debate before some
kind of getting his experience, getting experience for his style
of debating, and I'm not the biggest fan, to be
quite honest.

Speaker 4 (01:45:19):
So it's very it's very mechanical. It's relatively effective. But
the problem is someone made a comment to this effect,
so I'm just ripping this off. But I think it's true.
His debating style is kind of like if you were
to take an AI large laning large language model and

(01:45:40):
train it on Catholic answers dot Com and then create
a debater. That's kind of what Trent Horn is. He
just sort of takes the standard Catholic position, presents it,
and he does so from a context of church authority
and who has the burden of proof generally based on tradition,
and so he often I think what I find unsatisfying

(01:46:05):
is he doesn't take his opponent's arguments very seriously because
of the way that he frames the burden of proof.
At the beginning of his debates, and he always starts
his debates like that. He always starts by framing the
burden of proof, and it does seem to make him
seem like he's not taking his opponent's argument very seriously
throughout the debate. It's a relatively effective style. I don't

(01:46:27):
hate it just from making your point. Like even still
in this debate, I feel like Christy's making better points.
But I think that Trent did a pretty good job
when he signed on to the debate statement in terms
of what the standard was, so I think it is effective.

Speaker 6 (01:46:42):
Right, Yeah, yeah, Well the terms of the debate make
it easier for Trent, but I do agree. I would
almost preferred if Trent was out here just like Chad
yesing everything it's like nope, it's explicit or right, you're wrong, right,
instead of being like, well, listen, you can't prove that
it's not.

Speaker 9 (01:46:58):
There, but yeah, And it kind of muddies the waters
when it's just like a translation debate, which I know
a lot of this is dependent on that, but I
don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:47:10):
It kind of less satisfying to watch, which is why
I wish if you're gonna make this debate so tedious,
and I believe Frag is also a Catholic, so I
mean maybe there's an element of that going in as well.
But if you're going to make this debate over such
a minute detailed position, like, just let them have their
opening statements and then just get into it. Yeah, just

(01:47:32):
get into it with each other, lay out your position,
lay out what you think is wrong, what you think
is right, and then just give them the cross examination
right after that. Right, Yes, that's what I would prefer.

Speaker 9 (01:47:42):
Yeah, which is coming up, which thank god?

Speaker 6 (01:47:45):
Yeah, because we're we're an hour in and they have
not actually spoken to each other yet, right, yeah, Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:47:53):
It's rebudding, great comfort, you said. Jesus is the only
person referred to as the son of Mary. In Mark
chapter one, verse nineteen. It says James is the son
of Zebede and uses the Greek definite article. So does
this mean that James was Zebedee's only son.

Speaker 11 (01:48:12):
No, I'm not saying that the use of the definite
article means that Mary had only one child. My point
in that'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 metronym rather than a patronym. That normally in

(01:48:33):
the ancient Near East you would refer to someone as
the son of their father, the son of Joseph.

Speaker 7 (01:48:38):
Okay, and with that Mary God okay, I get that.

Speaker 8 (01:48:42):
So then Jesus was referred to as the carpenter's son,
and it's a patronym. Would this eliminate his brothers being
older step brothers according to the proto evangelian of James.

Speaker 11 (01:48:55):
No Backham talks about this in his article that in
some context 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,

(01:49:16):
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. It's I'm not saying that's a
required view, but it's a quite lausible one.

Speaker 8 (01:49:30):
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?

Speaker 11 (01:49:39):
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 had other Why that
Joseph had other children who are from other women, Just
like when we see in the beginning of Matthew's Gospel
talking about Adelphos's you used of Jacob's siblings, the children

(01:50:02):
of Jacob who were born from different women, Leah and Rachel.

Speaker 8 (01:50:06):
Okay, let's see in Catholic answering to the Cyclopedia, it
says that Andrew is the brother of Peter, or Andrew
the brother of Peter is also called the son of Jonah.

Speaker 7 (01:50:19):
How do we know this from the New Testament?

Speaker 11 (01:50:23):
You mean the son of John son of Jonah. Okay,
I'm not sure what your questions like, how do we
know Andrew and Peter are brothers?

Speaker 9 (01:50:34):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (01:50:34):
How do we know that they're that they're brothers? How
do we how do we know they're brothers?

Speaker 10 (01:50:40):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (01:50:40):
Well, it uses the Greek word for brother, So how
do we know.

Speaker 8 (01:50:45):
That Andrew is also the son of Jonah, because that's
what the Catholic Answers Encyclopedia states.

Speaker 11 (01:50:51):
Because the word adel f a 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.

Speaker 10 (01:51:00):
It is.

Speaker 2 (01:51:01):
I mean, it's quite.

Speaker 11 (01:51:01):
Possible they're born of different mothers, but there's no evidence
for us to pursue that route. So we could assume
that they have the same biological mother and father, but
once again we wouldn't assume.

Speaker 8 (01:51:12):
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.

Speaker 11 (01:51:24):
Well in your example of 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.

Speaker 7 (01:51:36):
Okay, let's see when Mary said, so, I do have
a question there.

Speaker 6 (01:51:42):
So if if you have to excuse it via this
previous marriage, do Catholics dogmatically believe that Joseph was married
before and if so, why would that be the case
just out of curiosity.

Speaker 4 (01:51:56):
Like as I understand it, there's a reasons Christia thoughts
on this.

Speaker 9 (01:52:04):
Go ahead.

Speaker 4 (01:52:07):
So there's two primary reasons why they think that he
may have been married before, and they both basically come
from this presupposition of perpetual virginity. So one is to
explain the whole brother's predicament, uh, And then the other
one is because they believe in a perpetual virginity. One
of the common explanations for why that would be the

(01:52:28):
case and why that wouldn't be a violation of kind
of the marital relationship is that Joseph and why Joseph
would be okay with it is that Joseph was a
very old man, like he had already been married and
and and so he was probably this is his second marriage.

(01:52:48):
His previous wife had died. He's already pretty old at
this point. He might even be impotent at that point,
and so they didn't need to have, you know, marital
relations for it to be a good marriage. It all
is derived it's derived from the concept of perpetual virginity.
It doesn't really have any other basis to it. But
that's a very old I mean, if you look back

(01:53:08):
in the early art about Joseph, he would often be
depicted as a very old man for that reason.

Speaker 6 (01:53:15):
Well, is that probably why just explicitly he is not
mentioned to post Jesus' twelfth year, Right.

Speaker 10 (01:53:22):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:53:23):
Yeah, it's a good and that could be one other
piece of evidence for why he came.

Speaker 6 (01:53:27):
Well, and I'm the second part to my question is
why is like why would that be the case? Like
most things that happen are to fulfill some sort of
prophecy or to be a type or analogy or reference.
But why having a previous marriage? Why would God select
someone who had a previous marriage? Is there some sort
of analogy or something that I'm missing there, like losing

(01:53:52):
one but being given another, like whoy y or better?
Like so you had one wife, lost it, but now
I'm going to give you like literally the Mother of
God as your wife. Like is there a picture there
that I'm missing?

Speaker 9 (01:54:05):
I don't know, You're going there, there's no structure on
that one.

Speaker 6 (01:54:08):
So yeah, no, I'm just curious, right because.

Speaker 4 (01:54:10):
I'm not aware of any traditional explanation along those lines,
but it don'd be interesting.

Speaker 9 (01:54:16):
That's a good question, though, I'm curious now as well.

Speaker 6 (01:54:19):
We need to chart illustrating this. Yeah, I'm too trench. Yeah,
I like it.

Speaker 4 (01:54:27):
How the focus just carries over.

Speaker 6 (01:54:29):
That's true. It's never gonna stop yet. Joseph wanted to
divorce Mary because he thought she was unfaithful. Yes, but
that would be regardless of whether he was married before
or not, right, Yeah, mm hmm. Were carpenter's high status.

Speaker 9 (01:54:47):
I don't think so. I mean, Jesus was a carpenter,
and he pretty much was poor his whole life, So
I don't think they were. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:54:54):
One of the first arguments against the Gospel to which
the early apologists responded to one of the very first
arguments that we have. We don't actually have the text recorded,
but we have a lot of the quotes from the
text in the apologist's rebuttal to it, so we know
that the text did exist. But one of the arguments

(01:55:15):
against the Gospel from an early Greek philosopher, kind of
a second rate Greek philosopher, but he would attack the
Gospel in part on the grounds that Christ was a
very low birth, and so you can't possibly have a
God coming into the world. He would have come through
a king or through someone of much higher birth, so

(01:55:36):
we know that in terms of the that was part
of the offense of the Gospel. It was seen as
being just a posterous statement that God would come into
the world in such a way as the Christians described.
I can't remember the name of that guy. We do
have his name as well as a lot of the
quotes wrote his book.

Speaker 6 (01:55:56):
Talking about tactus Is said his name Tactics.

Speaker 4 (01:56:00):
I don't think that real quick I could find the.

Speaker 6 (01:56:02):
First century, first century scholar, because then we also have Josephus,
the Jewish scholar in the first century, right, he was
also explicitly mentions Jesus and some other things, and he's
a Jewish scholar who is not a Christian, right, he's
anti Christianity. I believe that's Josephus.

Speaker 4 (01:56:17):
Sort of it can of the Josephus. There's like two
different quotes that are used from Josephus, one of which
is suspect.

Speaker 6 (01:56:25):
I did. I watched this again one of those things
where you watch too many hour long videos and they're
all kind of run together. But I did watch a
video going over like new findings in Josephus to back
up the reliability of his claims or something like that
somebody had written a new book on it, So I
kind of got the the.

Speaker 4 (01:56:42):
Even just based on the text. So there's like two
different quotes, one of which seems to be pretty much
entirely Josephus, and then where he just mentions Christ as
being a person who was put to death by the Romans.
The the I think there's another quote that goes beyond
that and talks about him as being the Christ and
starts to use very Christian language, and it's like, well,

(01:57:02):
Jusephus was almost certainly not a Christian. It seems like
he was a Jewish historian, and why would he have
written about Jesus in this way? There are explanations for
why he could have. Perhaps he was just saying what
the Christians said about Jesus.

Speaker 6 (01:57:18):
Well, because Christianity was exploding during this time, So yeah,
this would be a hot topic for him as as
a Jewish.

Speaker 4 (01:57:24):
Person, But the critical analysis of it would possibly suggest
it to be an interpolation or where where someone was
fossil later was over the writings of Jusephus and then
kind of piously put in this this segment saying which
he actually was.

Speaker 6 (01:57:39):
So it's possible, Yeah, but I mean he would have
been in Jerusalem the same times as James was Bishop
of Jerusalem. I mean they were contemporaries of each other basically.
So yeah, so he would have been you know, he
would have actually been at the same time of the apostles, right,
so as possible he could have seen Peter and Paul.

(01:58:02):
Isn't the same time for himself? I know not?

Speaker 7 (01:58:04):
Man and Luke?

Speaker 9 (01:58:05):
Uh?

Speaker 8 (01:58:06):
One point thirty four. Does this indicate a vowel of
perpetual virginity?

Speaker 11 (01:58:11):
Yeah, I think there is good reason to believe that,
but that's not what we're debating today.

Speaker 8 (01:58:17):
Well, well, it is an argument that actually I hear
from a lot of contemporary Catholic apologies. So in the
septuag in Genesis nineteen nine, lots daughters use the same.

Speaker 7 (01:58:27):
Greek word philosopher against engage in a vowel of perpetual virginity.

Speaker 2 (01:58:35):
I'm not sure that that is the.

Speaker 10 (01:58:39):
Uh.

Speaker 11 (01:58:40):
In Genesis are you talking nineteen nine? Are you talking
about nineteen probably later, after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
when they are I know not.

Speaker 2 (01:58:50):
Oh, the ones that have not known a man, I
not know.

Speaker 9 (01:58:54):
I know not.

Speaker 8 (01:58:55):
Man, it's the same Greek words that Mary says when
she says, I know not man, I don't know.

Speaker 11 (01:59:00):
I wouldn't assume that that involves a valve virginity. 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 add 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

(01:59:23):
to engage in conjugal relations even at you know, even
right at that moment after you and jo had left.
So it's they're different to examine. But that's not what
we're debating whether scripture teaches it.

Speaker 8 (01:59:33):
Okay, So multipart question here. If Mary was amankly conceived,
why would Joseph in your kinsfolk who knew her think
that her pregnancy was a result of adultery?

Speaker 11 (01:59:46):
Well, 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
miss and many of them did not believe in him.

Speaker 2 (02:00:02):
The questions for Joseph.

Speaker 8 (02:00:03):
Okay, how about Mary's parents and Joseph who was from
the same tribe who she was betrothed.

Speaker 11 (02:00:08):
To, that she was conceived without original sin? Well, why
would I believe that Mary's parents?

Speaker 8 (02:00:15):
Yeah, wouldn't they have noticed that their child, up to
the age of twelve or thirteen, however she was, that
she had not committed a single sin.

Speaker 11 (02:00:24):
The proto Evangelium of James does talk about Mary being
very mature for her age, walking at an early age,
for example, and being precocious. And then she was placed
in the to be serving within the temple, so at
an early age I think about around age three, So
they probably they probably were aware of something very special
about her at that time. So there's nothing in scripture

(02:00:45):
that contradicts that.

Speaker 8 (02:00:46):
So a child that age, you think it's realistic that
in the condition that they were brought up, that they
could that Mary could have never committed a sin, especially
as a child.

Speaker 2 (02:00:59):
I believe all things are possible with God.

Speaker 7 (02:01:01):
Yeah, Okay, why.

Speaker 8 (02:01:03):
Was she shocked about the annunciation? If she was immaculately conceived,
wouldn't she have known that she was the virgin from
Isaiah seven fourteen.

Speaker 2 (02:01:15):
Well, not necessarily.

Speaker 11 (02:01:17):
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.

Speaker 4 (02:01:37):
Do you think these arements God? They don't seem to be.
They don't really go to his point, They don't really
show a contradiction. Yeah, or even just I don't know,
even just on the merits, even if contradiction was in
the standard, they're just not super strong arguments.

Speaker 6 (02:01:54):
If you're I could I could see how if you're
trying to get him to boil down his definition so
you can use it to track someone later in this right,
because I could use this in a debate, like I'm
smart enough to figure this out, right, if I can
get you to make a couple definitions here that I
can come back to you later on and be like, ah,
you just said the opposite thing if you mested so
this could be just a debate tactic.

Speaker 8 (02:02:12):
Or whatnot, or Jesus being a preemptive savior instead of
a redemptive, redeeming savior.

Speaker 11 (02:02:22):
Saving you're talking about saving someone, giving someone salvation prior
to their sins.

Speaker 7 (02:02:29):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (02:02:30):
Could you name one verse in where either God or
Jesus has described that way in the New Testament?

Speaker 2 (02:02:36):
No, I don't. I think I can think of anything
like that.

Speaker 11 (02:02:40):
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.

Speaker 8 (02:02:49):
Would you agree with Jerry Mantis that the assumption of
Mary was an eyewitness account, just as jesus ascension was.

Speaker 2 (02:02:57):
I don't know if I would.

Speaker 11 (02:03:00):
If it was an eyewitness account, I suppose someone would
had to have been informed about that. Perhaps John witnessed
this event and then told others, or this may have
been given to John through some other kind of revelation.

Speaker 2 (02:03:13):
I don't know if I could answer the question definitively.

Speaker 7 (02:03:16):
Oh, that's fair.

Speaker 8 (02:03:17):
So if so, if it was an eyewitness account, why
hasn't the Catholic Church dogmatically declared whether or not she
died first?

Speaker 11 (02:03:26):
Because the details about whether she died or not have
not been given to us in the depositive faith, that
particular fact has not been given to us. That's why
they're 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

(02:03:48):
something that went without contention.

Speaker 8 (02:03:50):
Since since the Catholic Church is certain that 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,
step brothers, cousins, et cetera.

Speaker 11 (02:04:13):
Because once again, not every truth of the faith, not
every truth about the first century life, for example, has
been handed down to us. As I mentioned in my
book The Case for Catholicism. In 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

(02:04:36):
don't know who that was, and biblical scholars have had
many different answers, and we don't know much the same.
This particular truth about whether Mary died or not, that
has not been handed down to.

Speaker 2 (02:04:49):
Us, but that she was assumed that Heaven was even.

Speaker 6 (02:04:51):
Though go on, So all right, that sums it up.

Speaker 10 (02:04:57):
Trent. You have ten minutes to cross examine Steve whenever
you begin.

Speaker 11 (02:05:04):
Okay, let's take a look here. So Steve, we agree.
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 marry and 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

(02:05:26):
how to apply it, but the basic level Mother of
God isn't contradicted by scripture.

Speaker 8 (02:05:33):
Agree as long as the difference is the difference between
marylogical title versus christological title. That's probably where we would disagree,
But go ahead.

Speaker 2 (02:05:42):
Sure.

Speaker 11 (02:05:43):
Does the Bible ever say Mary was not assumed into heaven?

Speaker 8 (02:05:49):
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.

Speaker 7 (02:05:57):
But we don't get it. But why is there not
a dogma. Those dogmas apply to Joseph, so.

Speaker 11 (02:06:01):
You're just gonna agree it does not say, it does
not deny Mary was assumed into heaven.

Speaker 8 (02:06:06):
Well, I would say that it contradicts it, because if
she was indeed sinless, Mary would not have been a
bodily assumed into heaven for the reasons I stated in
my opening statement.

Speaker 4 (02:06:17):
If she were sinless, what would what would happen to her?

Speaker 8 (02:06:20):
If she 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 I.

Speaker 4 (02:06:36):
Don't think that's a good argument. Because Christ was assumed.
Uh I that's the yeah, I mean Christ ascended to heaven.
I feel like, yeah, I don't. I don't agree with
that argument at least as he's currently stated it.

Speaker 11 (02:06:49):
Purpose of their assumptions. But let me get to that
point about death though. Can a person with a human
nature die even if they are free from sin?

Speaker 7 (02:07:04):
Can a person die? Well?

Speaker 8 (02:07:05):
According to Genesis chapter In Genesis, it says in that
day you will surely die. And my contention is that
if Adam had not I had not fallen and inherited
original sin, he would not have died.

Speaker 2 (02:07:21):
Okay, So was Jesus free from sin? And he also died.

Speaker 7 (02:07:25):
Jesus became sin. That's why he died. He was put
on he was put on the cross.

Speaker 2 (02:07:33):
So there was something sinful about Jesus.

Speaker 7 (02:07:36):
He became sin.

Speaker 8 (02:07:37):
The Second Corinthians is as clear, Uh. God made him
who knew no sin to become sin for us.

Speaker 9 (02:07:46):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (02:07:48):
And I talk about what that verse means a lot
of different contexts.

Speaker 4 (02:07:50):
But yours what is the There's no way that Trent
Horridon is in keeping with the rest of Catholic theology.

Speaker 10 (02:07:56):
I I don't know.

Speaker 4 (02:07:58):
That argument just seems wad feel to me. Maybe I'm
apama Catholics think, but I just don't think that you
can say in any way that Christ's death was not
as a direct result of the sin that he was
taking on.

Speaker 6 (02:08:20):
Right, So the inference there become is from when Poncha's
pilot is surprised that Jesus is dead, right, because he
hasn't been up there very long. So it's it's as
if something else has killed him, like him giving himself
up essentially, is that what you're saying there.

Speaker 4 (02:08:39):
Not necessarily I guess I'm just saying that Trent is
saying that someone can die simply because of their mortality,
not necessarily as a judgment from as a result of sin. Now,
Trent is trying to couch his argument by saying, you know,
not a result of their sin. And that is true

(02:09:02):
in the case of Christ, he is the one person
who could take on other people's sins. But once you
accept that his death was absolutely as a result of sin,
he was not an exception to that death period with
no exceptions, is a result of sin. And so I
just think that Trent is is disagreeing with what I

(02:09:25):
just said about death being a necessary result of sin.
And I just don't know how you make that case.
I do not think that that is a valid Christian
stance period, Catholic or Protestant.

Speaker 6 (02:09:37):
Well, I think the part that he's really taking an
issue with there is when he said he became sin
rather than like art in humanity which has a fallen
sinful nature. So not that Jesus himself was sinful, right,
That's what is taking an issue with their.

Speaker 4 (02:09:56):
Yeah, well, it sounds like Trent, not Trench, is saying
that there's this category of mortality that has nothing to
do with sin, Like just by by virtue of being human,
you are mortal and you inherit that mortality without any

(02:10:21):
any relation to sin. And I, yeah, I just I don't.
I don't think that you can make that case.

Speaker 11 (02:10:33):
The difference between having being sinful and becoming sin.

Speaker 8 (02:10:40):
Being sinful is saying that you have inherited original sin,
and becoming sin means that sin was imputed to you.

Speaker 11 (02:10:53):
This is all right, let me let me ask you.
This was Jesus Christ free from sin.

Speaker 8 (02:10:58):
Jesus Christ did not herod original sin, but he became sin,
which is why the father had to turn away from him.

Speaker 2 (02:11:05):
Okay, and so that so that's why he why he died. Yes,
all right, you said something that Mary.

Speaker 8 (02:11:11):
Mary was able to do something that Jesus didn't. She
didn't become sin either, according to Roman Catholicism.

Speaker 2 (02:11:17):
Okay, let's see here.

Speaker 11 (02:11:21):
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 than less.

Speaker 2 (02:11:30):
Uh.

Speaker 11 (02:11:31):
Let's talk about let's talk about the perpetual virginity of Mary.
So does the Bible say Mary gave birth to anyone
besides Jesus.

Speaker 8 (02:11:42):
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 that others that he didn't give birth
to older steps siblings of Jesus. So that's an argument
from silence.

Speaker 2 (02:11:56):
And you that's fine.

Speaker 11 (02:11:58):
Is are you going to answer the question and does
it describe her giving birth to anyone else or say
she give birth to anyone else?

Speaker 8 (02:12:03):
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 other passages in scripture that jesus brothers are
his biological younger half siblings.

Speaker 2 (02:12:25):
Okay, So is this is this your view?

Speaker 11 (02:12:28):
Jesus and his siblings have the same mother but they
have different fathers.

Speaker 8 (02:12:34):
Yes, because Jesus' younger half sibling was Joseph, while Jesus's
father was God.

Speaker 11 (02:12:41):
Okay, where in the Bible is the Greek word adelphos
used to describe siblings having the same mother but different fathers.

Speaker 8 (02:12:49):
The word for adelphas is used numerous times in both
the Old and New Testament to describe people who have
had the same parents. I mean, focusing on it's saying
that they had the same mothers is a little bit
of a straw man, because that's an argument that you're using,
which I feel is really irrelevant because you could use

(02:13:12):
the argument that Jesus had younger half sisters, because there's
nothing in that passage to eliminate that possibility.

Speaker 11 (02:13:22):
Okay, so I'm going to ask a questions again and
see if you'll answer it. 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

(02:13:44):
but different mothers. I'm just asking, is there an example
where you're 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.

Speaker 8 (02:14:03):
I would have to look through the whole Old Testament,
because the word brothers is used quite a bit of time.
So yeah, so as far as I know, I don't
know off Hamma. That doesn't mean that it's not being used,
And even if it was, I don't see the relevance
to it.

Speaker 2 (02:14:18):
The relevance would be that you're.

Speaker 8 (02:14:22):
Well, the relevance is the fact that the word adelphos
for brother, but the primary meaning means a biological sibling.

Speaker 7 (02:14:29):
So unless there's a reason.

Speaker 11 (02:14:32):
Is the primary meaning of adelphos that you have the
same biological mother and father, two individuals share the same
biological mother.

Speaker 8 (02:14:40):
And father, primary meaning of the word adelvos could either
refer to that having the same biological mother or father.
It can also refer to 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.

Speaker 11 (02:14:57):
Brothers because they have the same father but different mothers.

Speaker 8 (02:15:04):
But it doesn't demand for that, though it doesn't explicitly
state that is so.

Speaker 11 (02:15:09):
Then the word so then the word Adelphos could also
apply in this case to describe people that they have
the same adoptive father, Joseph, but different mothers Joseph's first
wife and his second wife.

Speaker 2 (02:15:22):
Can it be used in the case without contradicting scripture?

Speaker 7 (02:15:25):
Delphos is not my issue.

Speaker 8 (02:15:26):
I mean, actually you and I would agree on this.
My argument is how the word adelphae specifically is used
in the New Testament Greek. I don't have a problem
with the word adelphos. That was never my argument.

Speaker 7 (02:15:38):
It's okay, delf So.

Speaker 11 (02:15:40):
For an ancient Greek speaking person, why would adelpha have
a narrower semantic range than adelphos? And the only difference
here is the gender? Why would that be the case?

Speaker 8 (02:15:51):
Because if you look in Strong's Greek exhaustive concordance and
how it is used in the New Testament, which is
with the debate is about not extra biblical work. It
is used consistently and only to describe biological siblings.

Speaker 9 (02:16:10):
Uh.

Speaker 8 (02:16:11):
Remember that this is this is the focus of our debate,
how it's used in scripture.

Speaker 11 (02:16:16):
Well, right, but when we look at something like Strong's
for example, Uh, are you aware that strongs defines adelphos
and adelphe the same way. For example, Strong's eighty 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.

Speaker 8 (02:16:36):
Right, Oh, absolutely, And then it says when you refer
to adel Fay. When you look that up, it only
has two meanings. It refers to it natural sister is
well or a biological.

Speaker 11 (02:16:46):
I'm running out of times, so I've got two more
questions here. So the Protestant, the Protestant Reformers like Luther
and Zwingley believe Did they believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?
And were they committed to solo scriptura?

Speaker 7 (02:17:01):
They were committed to sol a scripture.

Speaker 8 (02:17:03):
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.

Speaker 11 (02:17:19):
Okay, did they think that there was anything unbiblical about
Mary being of a virgin.

Speaker 7 (02:17:25):
That they as Roman?

Speaker 6 (02:17:27):
So I don't think that that's particularly a strong argument
to bring up Luther or Zwingli, because they simply would
not have access to maseratic text septuagen in the same
detail and cross referencing like we can do like instantaneously, right.
And also, to be fair, that they were Catholic priests, right,

(02:17:48):
so of course they would believe the normal Catholic dogma
and they wouldn't have any reason to distrust that.

Speaker 9 (02:17:53):
Right.

Speaker 6 (02:17:53):
So it's not until hundreds of years later where you
have access to all this different information that again the
layperson just would never have had. Right, you would have
even seen a Bible, a complete Bible, or read it
yourself if you even could read back then, right.

Speaker 4 (02:18:07):
So I don't think we're very familiar with the entirety
of scriptural text. I mean just the wealth the ability
of some of these reformers.

Speaker 6 (02:18:20):
And I believe that they would be yes, but being
able to cross reference Greek and Aramaic right next to
each other at the exact same time, like we can't,
like I don't have to speak it, I can just
instantly have it and machine translated for me, right, So
I think that technology has allowed this to happen more right,

(02:18:41):
it's lowered the entry to the barrier to entry, so
to speak.

Speaker 4 (02:18:46):
But to transpoint, solo scripture does not necessitate a reject
right because Luther was a huge solo scripture a guy,
and he basically was on board with at least some
of the marine dogmas, if not all of them. Some
of them were defined morem phatically later, but I think
he probably would have had word with most of them,
if not all of them. And he was a soul
script for a guy. So that does seem to indicate

(02:19:07):
and familiar scripture. So to Trent's point, it does seem
like contradicts is too, Hi have a standard?

Speaker 6 (02:19:15):
Yeah, yeah, but I mean they weren't even infallibly declined
till four hundred years later though.

Speaker 10 (02:19:20):
Yeah, but I mean yeah, the whole.

Speaker 6 (02:19:24):
The the.

Speaker 4 (02:19:26):
The infallible declarations are a declaration on the basis of
consensus in the in the moment, but also a vast
historical consensus as well. I mean that that certainly is
how they couch them. So I think protests will sometimes
point to a late declaration and be like, well, this

(02:19:47):
is when it was infallibly declared, and and use that
as an argument for saying Oh, it didn't even come
about as a doctrine until this point. And that's usually
not the case. There are some doctrines that were debated
until they were infallibly declared. They were infallibly declared because
of the dates, right.

Speaker 6 (02:20:07):
And many councils were brought together to that Exactly.

Speaker 4 (02:20:10):
Those you should legitimately challenge as being like, well, they
were still in question all the way up until they
were declared. Where that's not the case with Mary. Like
Mary was not really questioned for for a long time,
and then it was.

Speaker 6 (02:20:20):
And it was it was four or four hundred something
when I think that that the question of Mary's theotokos
was settled, and that was in like four thirty one
or something like that.

Speaker 4 (02:20:33):
Whenever I Christie's right, that was all on the basis
of Christiological claims, not mariological.

Speaker 6 (02:20:41):
And when it comes to ex cathedral statements for me
or even counselors or whatnot, right, you as a Catholic,
you have to square Vatican two and Una sanctum and
stuff like that. So that's not a Protestant problem.

Speaker 8 (02:20:56):
Yeah, because Mary was not an issue. You they didn't
have a problem with her being 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 Catholic.

Speaker 2 (02:21:11):
Did they believe every Catholic truth?

Speaker 8 (02:21:15):
Did the reformers believe every Catholic church? 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.

Speaker 2 (02:21:27):
Did they believe that the Mary? And did they believe
Mary's at around of time?

Speaker 7 (02:21:31):
So go ahead, please finish, go ahead, question.

Speaker 11 (02:21:35):
They And then did they believe that the doctrine of
Mary's perpetual virginity violated the authority of Scripture?

Speaker 9 (02:21:44):
Yes?

Speaker 8 (02:21:44):
And as 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
it's it's irrelevant.

Speaker 10 (02:21:54):
All right, We're going to move into Well, I think so.

Speaker 6 (02:22:02):
But the problem that I have with this is is
from an outside looking in who hasn't done all the research,
who doesn't have this as like my my upgroom bringing.
So this is not ingrained in me. I don't know
why it's a dogmatically defined thing like I don't necessarily
see the importance of if you even have a question

(02:22:25):
about it being damned outside of the church. I mean, like, so,
so I could take it all at face value. I
can agree that the bodily assumption to marry one thousand
percent possible, that has happened to people in the past,
happening to the Mother of God, absolutely not outside of
the question, right Mary being a perpetual version. I don't

(02:22:46):
see why that wouldn't be possible through miraculous means, as
God does many miracles and does them all throughout the
New Testament and Old Testaments, so on and so forth.
So I don't see why that's a problem. But then
it's like question it and die, and I'm like, hmmm,
I mean, I mean, I guess for the sake of unity, maybe,
but I just don't know why it is it is

(02:23:07):
so central, although I wonder if it's more of a
response to Protestant rejection of Marion dogmas that it has
to be like no, no, no, no, you will accept this.

Speaker 4 (02:23:23):
And that's my understanding is that it's infallibly declared because
it has to be, because there's no other way to
justify it. I mean, yeah, if you believe that it
is true and you believe that it must be true,
then you have to infallibly declare it in order to
provide some form of.

Speaker 9 (02:23:42):
Authoritative declaration.

Speaker 4 (02:23:43):
Authoritative Yeah, yeah, yeah, there has I mean that's the
only authority, authoritative option that they have.

Speaker 9 (02:23:49):
Got for it.

Speaker 6 (02:23:51):
Well, right, So that's my thing is is so there
are other elements of faith that are left open to interpretation,
right that you do not have to be settled on
one or the other. But this one about Mary specifically,
you have to hold all four of these at the
same time without question. So I mean, that's that's just

(02:24:16):
my my concern with how with this entire debate I
suppose I.

Speaker 4 (02:24:20):
Mean depositive faith, it's just something that they see is
being carried down throughout history.

Speaker 9 (02:24:26):
And yeah, like we talked about in the last stream,
Catholics do put tradition on the same level as scripture.
So it kind of that's up.

Speaker 10 (02:24:43):
Assive. 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 trend If you guys could
try to keep your answers about two minutes each. Some
of these questions are for both of you, but it
might be better if I asked a question just one
of you respond since we have so many. Okay, so

(02:25:04):
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 marion dogma was or is the hardest
for you to accept? You answer that in the last
ask Steve the next question.

Speaker 11 (02:25:21):
Well, in my own 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 by broadening my understanding of

(02:25:43):
what is the ultimate source of authority for Christians. That
it's not solo scripture, because the Bible itself doesn't even
teach that, And so moving from that that if Jesus
Christ did establish the church, if I am confident of
that and in its teaching authority, then I can eat
confident in what the Pope teaches about Mary in regards
to those two dogmas. But I can especially have confidence

(02:26:06):
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. You know, they'll
say that I don't believe it, but Steve might say
it doesn't contradict scripture necessarily.

Speaker 10 (02:26:26):
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 of these three maryon dogmas. But
which do you think would be the easiest for you
to get on board with.

Speaker 7 (02:26:43):
Oh wow, that's kind of hard.

Speaker 8 (02:26:46):
I'd have to respond individually, I mean, because honestly, I
believe that all three do contradict all of them, probably
I 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 would even Epiphanius Islamis stated that

(02:27:10):
nobody knows what happened to Mary at their end of
her life, which demonstrates there was no eyewitness. So probably,
honestly that one. As far as Jesus' brothers and sisters,
I probably have studied that more than anything else. And
I just that that would probably be the hardest for

(02:27:31):
me to accept and Mary being or maybe Mary being sinless,
because I just I mean, Trent, you got a seven
year old. It's like as good as a kid as
he is based on who his parents are. I'm throwing
you a bone here, and I truly believe that because
you're a nice guy.

Speaker 7 (02:27:47):
I like it dread if if any if anything like
the parents. He's a good kid.

Speaker 8 (02:27:53):
But I can't imagine by the age of seven that
his oldest child has in one time. And I can
honestly say the same thing about Mary, especially with the
oppression of Rome and the Jews, especially especially after Jesus
was born. So I don't know if it answers the question,
but probably the bottle.

Speaker 6 (02:28:14):
Okay, thank you, that's another sorry, I guess that's another progression.
Where So even yeah, Epiphanius of Salamu's church father right
fourth century, he's unsure, right, So if the church father
is like, oh, I have no idea what happened to Mary.
I don't know. Yeah, yes, that's the thing. I'm like,

(02:28:37):
I don't know this. Saintans in Heaven, having never held
this position, however, you are damned for also having the
exact same opinion Asians. I just think that's strange.

Speaker 9 (02:28:51):
That's fair point, all right.

Speaker 10 (02:28:52):
So this question is for Steve, and this comes from Kevin,
who's a local support. He says, this is a question
for Steve. How do you understand Luke one twenty eighths
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.

Speaker 1 (02:29:09):
Thanks.

Speaker 7 (02:29:10):
Sure.

Speaker 8 (02:29:11):
I address this a little bit during the debate. The
specific Greek word k care to many, which is translated
full of grace or highly favored. Even Jimmy Aiken from
Catholic Answers and even tret has argued that the word
does not mean to be immaculately conceived. You know, it
doesn't even imply that. Again in Serah chapter eighteen, I

(02:29:32):
think it's verse seventeen, and the septuagent uses the same
Greek word, but in the masculine to refer to a
man being full of grace.

Speaker 7 (02:29:39):
It's k care to may know. And obviously Trent and
I would agree that it doesn't mean that way.

Speaker 8 (02:29:44):
And as Jimmy Aikin has pointed out, if Mary needed
to be 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 to.

Speaker 7 (02:29:57):
Eve and you know, and so it just it doesn't.
I mean, it doesn't. It doesn't prove. It's not a
good proof text to use.

Speaker 4 (02:30:04):
This next question is, well, oh, can I have a
comment answered?

Speaker 10 (02:30:09):
That's fun? Just keep it, keep it shorter than his response.

Speaker 2 (02:30:12):
Yeah. Sure.

Speaker 11 (02:30:13):
And what I would say here is that I agree
that the use of Kakarto Mane and Luke one twenty
eight 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 Syrac eighteen seventeen, where
the word is also used in the Tuigent. In Luke

(02:30:33):
one twenty eight, 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 as very unusual. A Protestant scholar,
Craig Keener says, neither the title favored or graced one,
nor the promise the Lord is with you was traditional

(02:30:55):
in greetings, even if the person had been of status.

Speaker 2 (02:30:58):
So I think that that is highly significant.

Speaker 11 (02:30:59):
There something very very special about Mary in the way
that it's used, along with the words definition.

Speaker 10 (02:31:05):
Can I quick quickly yeah, 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.

Speaker 7 (02:31:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (02:31:15):
Well, the thing is in both cases, in the septuagen
and in Luke's Gospel, they're both in the perfect passive participles,
so they're being used the same way. And I would
also address that Luke actually specifically states that it is
a salutation.

Speaker 7 (02:31:26):
That's all it is. That's all I.

Speaker 1 (02:31:28):
Wanted to say.

Speaker 10 (02:31:29):
This is hard, isn't it? Because I know every one
of those points. You could go back and forth on
a lot, but let's try to keep it to 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,

(02:31:52):
for example, how does one reconcile the following statements I
am the Way, the Truth, and the Life from our
Blessed Lord in John fourteen six and hele Holy Queen
Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness now hope emphasis
on both claiming to be our life. So when does
Mary in devotion turn into idolatry?

Speaker 2 (02:32:12):
Sure?

Speaker 11 (02:32:13):
So, idolatry, according to the Catechism in paragraph twenty one thirteen, says,
idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits
idolatry when he honors and revers 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

(02:32:34):
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 well be idolatry. In the

(02:32:56):
early Church there was a heretical sect called the Chloridians,
and Epithanius condemns them, and they talks about how they
offered cakes.

Speaker 2 (02:33:04):
On altars to marry.

Speaker 11 (02:33:06):
But the only thing we should offer on an altar
is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the lamb
of God that he is 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 buy idolatry. Worshiping Mary as if you know, she
takes the place of God and is the one who,

(02:33:28):
so you know, secures our salvation, as if she died
on the cross, or something like that. We must be careful,
of course, that in Mary in devotion sometimes people use
very flowery language that they don't necessarily that should necessarily
be taken literally, because 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

(02:33:50):
its magisterial teachings about Mary and her important role in salvation.
But even Saint Louis to Montford, who uses very lofty
language of Mary, says of her that she is but
one adam 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 divinizing her.

Speaker 10 (02:34:10):
Your response, Steve, Yeah, I think.

Speaker 8 (02:34:13):
I want to comment on well, then, okay, I want
to comment on his use of the word veneration in
the Darby translation of the New Testament.

Speaker 7 (02:34:20):
We're in Second Thessalonians.

Speaker 8 (02:34:22):
Chapter two, and it talks about worshiping images and worshiping 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 of veneration. It's it's a word that really should

(02:34:43):
be used strictly 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. And the other
issue is the fact is that even though a pope
would not be allowed to declare some thing that goes
against what the magisterium teaches, and the magister and I
doubt whatever, teach about worshiping Mary. What's interesting is that,

(02:35:08):
according to Lumangentim, it says that even when the pope
is not speaking ex cathedra, you must you must actually
listen to what the pope says. And this was a
dogmatic constitution of the church by Paul the six and
he went on to say that Muslims and and and
Christians worship the same God, when in fact they don't

(02:35:31):
because the Christian God is Jesus and the Muslim God
is Allah and is not Jesus.

Speaker 11 (02:35:38):
And I'd like, I'd like my little mini rebuttal very
quick points Matt, that is a topic for another debate.
And we've also addressed that frequently at Catholic dot 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're due. I would give this
analogy to my Protestant brothers and sisters. Suppose we discovered

(02:35:59):
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.

Speaker 2 (02:36:09):
I bet you would.

Speaker 11 (02:36:10):
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 through the means by which
Jesus was born?

Speaker 10 (02:36:30):
Fair enough, Steve's shaking his head, no, but we'll leave
it at that for now. This next question.

Speaker 6 (02:36:35):
That is actually curious. I've never thought about that specific
example before, but I wonder how many degrees of separation
there are between the objects? Right, So, let's say you
found the stakes that were used to pin Jesus to
the cross, But then does that translate to the Roman
soldier that did it, or to the sandals that he
was wearing, or like, like, how many degrees of separation

(02:36:58):
of different items does that go for veneration?

Speaker 9 (02:37:02):
Right?

Speaker 2 (02:37:06):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (02:37:07):
Well, I mean at some point it's just we have
to marvel in the fact of the incarnation. And you know,
if relics help us do that, I suppose that's fine.
But we have to remember that we are to give
our worship to God and not to the things of
this world. And I mean, this argument could apply to
all of God's creation. That is the distinction that defines idolatry.

(02:37:28):
That's giving worship to something to the created, not the creator.
And so there's all kinds of things in this world
that are made just wonderfully and remarkably because of God's
creative act, and that should direct us to the Creator.
Anytime that we are directed in worship to the created,
that's idolatry. And that is an age old temptation and sin.

Speaker 10 (02:37:54):
You know, I get it.

Speaker 4 (02:37:55):
Some things can be revered more than others.

Speaker 6 (02:37:57):
And where do you do an easy discussion?

Speaker 9 (02:38:00):
I like that.

Speaker 6 (02:38:01):
I like the ideas of objects being being helpful in
one's worship, or like framings one sorts. And even Protestants
they'll say, like they don't worship objects or whatnot, But
then they'll say, like, you can never set something on
top of the Bible. You can never you know, do
X Y Z or or the like. The Bible itself,
like their physical not the Bible that inspired responds, but
their specific Bible becomes an object that cannot be disrespected.

(02:38:23):
So when Steve is like shaking his head there about
the cross, like I would be like, well, the cross
needs to be somewhere kept safe for all the d
I was like, yeah, it's like that, that's that's ours,
that's nobody else's that's ours. Put it in the biggest
cathedral you have and it's there, right, So I mean, yeah,
I find that important, not just for historical context, but

(02:38:45):
also yeah, in in our in our religion, and it
should be a symbol, right if we actually had, like
the the legitimate.

Speaker 4 (02:38:52):
Cross, yes, yeah, But practically it is also just a
major temptation to Charlotte Trian Charlatanism, where you do get
people hawking these idols. There are these these relics that
are are not genuine, right, I mean, there's the old line.
I think Erasmus is the one who said it, which
is funny because Erasmus was a he was a humanist,

(02:39:14):
he was, but he was a Catholic. He had a
lot of criticism for the pope, but he also ended
up siding with the Pope in the end and wrote
against Luther, and Luther's bondage of the Will is a
response to Erasmus. Erasmus is a very interesting character. But Erasmus,
I believe it was him who said, if you were
to add up all of the various pieces of the

(02:39:37):
cross that are being positive as genuine pieces of the
cross across Europe, you would have a cross that stands,
you know, two hundred and fifty feet high. There were
definitely a lot of false relics, and it makes it
very hard to know what is real. And again it's
just are we willing to allow these temptationations institutionally? And

(02:40:03):
the Catholic Church traditionally has allowed a lot of practices
that were left the door open to corruption, you know,
and every institution is human, so I guess it's unavoidable.
And maybe the goods outweigh the bad. But the Protestant

(02:40:24):
feeling tends to be that the bad outweighs the good.
That's just not worth even if there is you know, value,
historical value, even value in terms of understanding just the
amazing nature of the incarnation, there's just too much room
for corruption to make it worth it to try to

(02:40:46):
benerate these things.

Speaker 6 (02:40:52):
On that note, I've got to go for a second.
Do you want me to let this play or do
you guys want to call it here?

Speaker 9 (02:40:58):
Call it.

Speaker 6 (02:41:00):
I will be right. I will be right back. And
then there's some starred comments if you guys want to
talk about those for a few minutes.

Speaker 9 (02:41:05):
Yeah, that.

Speaker 4 (02:41:09):
I started a few here.

Speaker 9 (02:41:11):
I started one.

Speaker 4 (02:41:17):
Because yours the Catholics and drinking.

Speaker 9 (02:41:18):
Yeah, yeah, I don't know if he's still here, but man,
I'm not even the one drinking the hard.

Speaker 4 (02:41:23):
Stuff now, I'm Yeah, several glasses.

Speaker 9 (02:41:28):
In here, Yeah, thrown down, the thrown of the bus.

Speaker 4 (02:41:36):
Let's see. I start a couple here. So Roman Catholic
apologists really lean on the unfilled unfalsibility fallacy in order
to create confusion. They do this so they can offer
the appeal to authority fallacy as the clarifier to the confusion.
I mean, it's just different standards of what you appeal

(02:41:56):
to which authorities do appeal to. The reason I started
this was merely because it's important to note that when
it comes to the logical fallacies or the syllogistic fallacies,
they are just that they're only fallacies in the context
of a syllogism. Right, So appealing to authority is not
a fallacy if you are making that appeal in an

(02:42:17):
inductive context as opposed to a deductive context. If you're
making an appeal to authority deductively, so in in your
logic chain you make an appeal to authority, then that's
not going to be logically valid, that'll be fallacious. But
if you're making that appeal at the very start of
your logic chain or in some part of your inductive process,

(02:42:38):
then that's not actually fallacious. So just important clarification because
sometimes people will jab at any time someone appeals to
authority as being fallacious, and it's not. In most contexts,
it's not actually a fallacy. And that really goes for
all of the logical fallacies.

Speaker 1 (02:42:54):
Let's see.

Speaker 4 (02:42:58):
Another one from the other Fillip. The real is that
the Bible is silent on Mary having other children or not.
So either position is dependent on rationalization and logic. Question
is which is our logic and reason based upon? Yeah,
I mean that's that's totally fair and Indiand it just
comes down to what standards you're going to hold to.

Speaker 6 (02:43:15):
Well, I think for the Catholics have an easier time
because they don't have to reason with the Bible. They
can just accept tradition.

Speaker 9 (02:43:21):
We're not crypta, yeah, which which is much.

Speaker 6 (02:43:23):
Easier, right if you can just say, well, I don't
know that guy did, so I am too right, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (02:43:31):
Yep, yeah, and which is basically what Logan is saying
right here as well.

Speaker 9 (02:43:35):
So is he inferring to the papal infallibility is regarding
the Marian dogmas.

Speaker 6 (02:43:41):
Or Logan is Orthodox and he missed most of it.
He came back in the last thirty minutes or so,
So he's probably just believing to like generic beliefs, like
traditional beliefs versus say, solo scriptoria sort of modern nutritions. Right,
So he also wouldn't agree with people and fallibility or
ex future statements or things like that.

Speaker 4 (02:44:03):
And I would think as an Orthodox, he believe Orthodox
priests are allowed to marry, or at least.

Speaker 6 (02:44:08):
In some context.

Speaker 2 (02:44:10):
I don't.

Speaker 9 (02:44:10):
I think it's there.

Speaker 6 (02:44:12):
They're allowed to be married and become a priest, and yeah,
but not post priests. Could post priests because they're they're
incentivized to be married before they become a priest. So
I believe that's how it works. Most of the Orthodox
priests online have are married with kids.

Speaker 4 (02:44:28):
Right, and even Byzantine Catholic priests I believe if they
follow the Byzantine right, then they are encouraged they're not
subject to the same canon law or something along those lines.

Speaker 6 (02:44:41):
Well, see, that's the thing to me too, when it
just comes down to tradition in general. If you're going
to say, well, Eastern busnest guys they can appold to
their Eastern traditions and Western guys can hold to their traditions,
but neither one of them can disagree from scripture. So
wouldn't that imply that scripture is higher than tradition because
tradition can be they this tradition, we got this tradition,

(02:45:01):
but you know it's it's neither of its contradicting scriptures.
So it's whole honky dory.

Speaker 4 (02:45:07):
But you can't say Sola ecclesia. It's why you have
to put scripture and the church on the same level.
For Valley Catholic theology.

Speaker 6 (02:45:17):
As I am, well right, but not if they have
the different traditions in different places, though, how could you
put them on the same level. Because if it's like
I'm in Rome, I can't get married. That guy is
in Constantinople, he can't get married. But both of those
are not all.

Speaker 4 (02:45:34):
Not all tradition has the same weight, right, there are
some elements that are okay.

Speaker 6 (02:45:39):
So now there's levels. Is there levels of scripture? There's
levels of tradition, but not levels of you know. That's
that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (02:45:45):
So oh yeah, I mean, yeah, it's it. Yeah, yeah,
I had another point on this, but I can't remember
what it was, so we can go on so that
I know. Really, it's it's twelve fourteen here, what is
it there?

Speaker 2 (02:45:59):
Eleven and.

Speaker 6 (02:46:01):
Fifteen? So it's not terrible, not too bad.

Speaker 9 (02:46:04):
I'm going to bed times eight thirty, so yeah, I'm waping.

Speaker 4 (02:46:10):
What's up in your your mountain time?

Speaker 6 (02:46:11):
Right?

Speaker 2 (02:46:11):
So it's it's.

Speaker 9 (02:46:13):
Yeah, it's not too bad, terrible?

Speaker 6 (02:46:17):
All right?

Speaker 4 (02:46:17):
Well, I mean question for the chat? Was this a
good format? Is this something that you guys enjoyed. I
noticed our attendance was a little bit lowered there in
this stream. I assume that's probably because of the topic
more than anything else, but it could also be the format.
I assume that a lot of our audience has either

(02:46:38):
one opinion or another on the Marian dogmas, and they're
not it's not. It's kind of one that either feel
one way or the other. You're not really in it
to be persuaded. So this is sort of an interesting
learning experience, but it's perhaps not the most interesting if
you already have your mind made up, but just curious
to hear any feedback on this format, if you would

(02:47:01):
like us to do more debates. I've had a good time, Pip,
you guys have as well.

Speaker 6 (02:47:09):
Yeah, And I also I do feel like this debate
specifically was a very very formal debate, which makes it
less interactive post to respond to because if they were
more argumentative and going back and forth, I feel like
there's more places for us to interject versus, like if
they have a fifteen minute opening statement, like we also

(02:47:29):
kind of need to just listen to their opening statement
right before we can give a counter.

Speaker 9 (02:47:33):
If it's a two hour debate too, then it's you know,
we're gonna be positive. Yeah, it's just going to take
a while.

Speaker 6 (02:47:38):
But yeah, some about us as Yeah, the video chosen
to direct it was a bit tedious. Yeah, and I
think it is kind of a miss topic. But I
think I also didn't quite transfer over properly from the
first stream today, so that's why we didn't get that
initial bump to start with. But there is something I
want to talk to you guys about after the stream.

Speaker 10 (02:47:53):
So cool.

Speaker 4 (02:47:54):
Yeah, all right, good deal. Well, I think that's it
for us today. Really appreciate everyone being apart.

Speaker 9 (02:48:03):
I'm looking for a stabby trad wife.

Speaker 6 (02:48:04):
Now I'm gonna send you the link. Now you're gonna
get download this app and you can message all of
them in prison and they will be dying for your attention.
You can buy them snacks, little treats, all.

Speaker 4 (02:48:19):
Right, guys, Well, thank you all for being here, and yeah,
God bless, have a great night.

Speaker 9 (02:48:25):
Good bless.

Speaker 6 (02:48:28):
Now this is the awkward part where