Are the Marian Dogmas Historically Credible? 

Some thoughts... I think you're misrepresenting Catholicism by calling it 'the church of Rome'. It's a universal system. And I've always felt that the biggest issue with rejecting the Marian dogmas is not that you disbelieve them per se, but that you reject an institution that Christ established to define such matters. I appreciate that Catholics often argue from history for their beliefs. But Catholic epistemology is more complex than that. We also believe, based on the nature of the Church as revealed in Scripture and through history, that the Holy Spirit leads, protects and guides His people into all truth. As such, it's not fatal to Catholicism if the Marian dogmas were more explacated in later centuries. If the majority of Christendom came to accept these beliefs, for over 1000 years, then it warrants belief.

​@@MrWoaaaaah The Holy Spirit card wins all arguments on Catholic history. We learn that if people are taught a made--up doctrine that's nowhere found in the early church, and if enough people believe it over time, then it "warrants belief," i.e., because legitimate, accurate history.

@@joeoleary9010 blame Jesus for making the Church and sending His Spirit. But on a side note, the Marian dogmas do have patristic evidence and implicit biblical bases.

@@joeoleary9010 Also a pope can teach literal heresy in public debate.....but it doesn't count....cause he wasn't speaking ex cathedra.

Not that strange. The church fathers didn't believe it because it wasn't infallibly taught.

That was also how I found Truth Unites. The overall online reaction to Bertuzzi converting has been fascinating, albeit regrettable at times.

Gavin is a good example of how debates and apologetics can be done well. These should not be used to slander, attack, or dominate, but instead to offer careful, loving, and biblical responses to those we disagree with. Apologetics has a reputation for being triumphalist and argumentative, but it really should be an avenue for dialogue about important issues. Otherwise, it just becomes a shouting match, like many debates seem to become.

@@ottovonbaden6353 What do you mean by the reaction to Bertuzzi converting has been regrettable? I just think if he's finding a deeper peace and walk w/ God then it's all good for him. I'm not Catholic, and don't get any icky feeling for not becoming Catholic. I'm just looking for unity as much as we can find, even while believing different doctrines.

@@AshtonSWilson I've enjoyed the debates between Catholics and protestants. No matter if they get triumphant or trying to one up, it's been a wealth of knowledge. Though I do love Gavin's gentle approach. He's not looking to convert them or change minds, just to show why he believes as he does and to give a well informed case for it.

Unfortunately there are certain elements who feel the need to denigrate their brothers and sisters in Christ for not believing the Marion doctrines and their supremacist mindset is quite Islamic in the way they insult and accuse

Or maybe flattered ? 😂

@@nicklowe_i doubt it

@@nicklowe_ I could only see the sinful and fleshly side of Mary being flattered by this undue deification. Heavenly Mary is perfected now, as all the saints in heaven are. I use the term saints as all saved believers, the same way the bible does.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 This was a joke, hence the laughy face

@@nicklowe_ Ok 😁

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. Revelation 11:19 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Revelation 12:1 There is only 1 Church guided by the Paraclete the Holy Ghost and that is Jesus Christ Holy Catholic Church.. be careful going after Jesus Christ Holy Mother it will lead to hell .

@@johnvitelli3862 where does the Bible say that not believing in Mary as you state her to be sends you to hell? No where. Those verses you quoted have absolutely nothing to do with Mary. She has no idea people even pray to her and she’s not suffering in the presence of the Lord. It’s all man made dogma. Be careful adding Mary and papist dogma to the gospel, it will send you to hell.

@@johnvitelli3862 ​​⁠ are those verses supposed to prove the assumption of Mary or something? Even though neither Mary nor an assumption is mentioned?

@@jncon8013 the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible do you believe in the Trinity ?

@@jncon8013 who has the AUTHORITY over the Bible ? Shouldn’t it be the Church that put it together in the 4th century?

It was one of the biggest stumbling blocks that stopped me from becoming Catholic. It’s so clearly an accretion of dogma.

There have been some good ones lately. Redeemed Zoomer and Truth Unites, Becket Cook and Truth Unites...here's hoping they continue!

Same here in Brazil

That’s pretty shocked for someone who had no idea. Thanks for sharing

That's the legacy of Catholicism.

@@chessplayer6632 you bet.. I wish more people knew.. maybe I should make it known more 😄

@@joycegreer9391 pretty much

Yes, lol. Trent Horn and other Catholic apologists could easily crank a series out of this one. God love them.

I recently came across a video from a few months ago where Trent addresses Gavin on the bodily assumption. Being someone who appreciates hearing multiple perspectives, I find it valuable to listen to both sides of the discussion.

@@gto2111 I do listen the Catholic side of things quite a bit. I've listened to a bit of Trent Horn too. His rebuttals tend to be long and sometime multi part rebuttals. I also find him a bit too manipulative and tactical in not just rebutting what was actually said. Gavin gently called him out on this in a short rebuttal that Gavin did.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 In my personal opinion, Gavin can be oversensitive at times. I see him as somewhat effeminate. He criticize individuals like Michael Lofton and Trent etc, who I believe are much kinder than I am. If I were to become an apologist, Gavin would not approve of me lol.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 It's the same when Christians respond to Muslims, atheists etc. The objection can be short, but the response can be longer.

Similar for me. The modern evangelical churches for me feel too try hard and showy. I grew up in Assemblies of God Pentecostals and our "old fashioned hymns" was Caribbean dance hall music but slower and they referenced psalms

​@@user-ne1ct2ev5z That just makes me second guess the resurrection to be honest.

@@user-ne1ct2ev5z The Marian dogmas are unscriptural and a bit ridiculous and I cannot accept them in good faith.

I agree with you. I think if I could cut out the falsehoods, I would be most comfortable in a Roman Catholic Church, and yet unfortunately I'm essentially forbidden from partaknig in the fullness of worship there (communion) because I can't contend with what their authorities have mandated

With due respect, try and find a Messianic congregation and visit. It's not some judiazing church or denomination, but a congregation of trying to get back to what the Acts Church would have been like, both Jew and Gentile, worshiping the Jewish Savior in the Jewish tradition. Just a thought and good luck!

And which protestant Church is doing exactly that? All of them? Some of them? None of them?

" Teachings like this put the very salvation of those who discuss them on the line"... I'm not positive how you mean this. Many protestants think it makes Catholics not saved. I'm fairly sure you don't mean it that way. I don't see it that way anymore. Catholics think there is considerable historical backing for their beliefs and refer to the church fathers. As a protestant, what many early Christians believed (who held power and esteem) is not my deciding factor in what I believe now. Gavin has been good at digging up many other church fathers who disagreed, or only agreed in part. Still the ultimate decider for me, as a sola scriptura Christian is, is it clear and evident in the bible, esp. the NT?

Absolutely!

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Catholicism has made it a salvation issue. Salvation of "Catholics" is problematic, not to say impossible. Catholicism is all about church father writings and tradition, and not so much about scripture.

@@dman7668 Strawman argument.

And the reverse is true with Christ's tomb. The Romans conveniently built a pagan shrine right on top of the place to mark its location so that later on when the Roman empire became Christian they were able to locate Golgotha and build the church of the Holy Sepulchre where Christ's body had lain without much difficulty.

The Orthodox Church has a location which Tradition says is where the Theotokos was buried. There is a church, just like all of the other Holy sites in the Holy Land. It isn’t a source of paganism. The reason why St. Michael took Moses’ body was because he was holy. Satan had no claim on his body because he was holy.

@@garrettklawuhn9874actually no, that couldn’t be the reason because in the transfiguration, Elijah was also there. Could have been anyone but it’s those two prophets.

@@duckymomo7935 how does that relate to what I said?

Why is that?

Yea the Catholic Church has deviated away from Christ if their entire talking piece is the mother and not Christ

Why would I read a book from a Roman apologist when there is zero historical and biblical evidence for the Marian dogmas? And Rome anathematizes anyone who refuses to believe something that shows up in gnostic writings centuries after Christ? Tim Staples does a good job twisting history and scripture to fit Rome’s narrative. They also try and use Aristotelian philosophy to imply things that scripture and history just denies. Mary was a blessed woman, a wonderful woman who served God in an amazing way. But she was a creature, nothing more.

yes, see video description for link

thanks! I have a lengthy video on the assumption. will consider doing one on the immaculate conception

Same here, I grew in appreciation for the blessed Mother when I journeyed into the Lutheran church. A lot of overlap with Anglicans. I visit my brothers ACNA church (Church of the Redeemer) a few times a year.

You'd be wrong about that.

@@N1IA-4 great comment, very thoughtful and well constructed. 👏

If it's true the "early church" believed Mary was assumed into heaven, then why did the 5th century Pope Gelasius condemn the earliest books that speak of the Assumption, and declare them heretical? Does one find the teaching of Mary's Assumption in the New Testament? No. What about in the writings of the Church Fathers previous to Gelasius? No. What about in the authentic piety of decreed Roman Catholic festivals and observances? No.

@@joeoleary9010 things are more complex than you suggest. Dig deeper into the condemnations attributed to Pope Gelasius I.

@@jonatasmachado7217 If you know what these things are, tell us. I note that a number of Catholics here keep alluding that Gavin can't be right on this topic. Yet they never spell out why.

Yes, except that the church Jesus gave us isn't the Roman Catholic church.

@@philagon as protestants and Catholics, we agree to disagree on this point. We are brethren and we are both on the path to heaven.

@@zachdavis7536 Nice sentiment, but the Catholic church anathematizes those who disagree with her claim of authority.

@@philagon good RU-vid channels to watch for clarity on this issue are Trent Horn and Bishop Robert Barron. They were a huge part of my catechesis.

@@zachdavis7536 Protestants and Catholics don't believe the same gospel at all. Just on this video you have the reference to a papal bull that anathemises all those who don't believe in the assumption of Mary. Virtually all Protestants reject the assumption of Mary. Therefore, it cannot be said that we are brothers and all on the same path to heaven. Jesus said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47 I don't see anything about the assumption on Mary there, or baptism, or confession. Even Peter preached this: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43

Whenever you show them church fathers that clearly disagreed with them, they just say well they agreed with me on this part, and will change the subject and act like we cannot use the church fathers to support ourselves. That’s what I’ve noticed, been talking with many Roman Catholics.

Sam Shamoun recently posted a video called 'When protestants argue like heretics and athiests' ... I look forward to one called 'When Roman Catholics argue like muslims' ...

@@ProtestantKing7 True. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do the same. It’s best not to be a slave to any tradition and be honest about what they said and if it is harmonious with Scrioture. I’m an ex-Protestant and mere Christian, with no intention of jumping to a different but equally erroneous and ahistorical faith like RC or EO.

@CatholicTalks I reject sola fide with my whole heart. Depends what you mean “sola scriptura.” If all one means by it is Scripture has higher authority than one or any number of bishops, then sure. Most ante-nicene Christians would be “sola scriptura.”

Did you know it’s your Protestant tradition to change the word “tradition” to “teaching” and relegate it to a footnote only when it doesn’t fit your narrative? See NIV 2Thes 2:15 and 3:6.

hey Taylor, they are listed in the chapter on Mary in my forthcoming book. Its several pages so I don't really think they would do well in a RU-vid comment. sorry to keep you in suspense!

@@TruthUnites do you recall the author's names?

As a Catholic Christian, I don't hear other Catholics constantly talking about Mary. Be careful not to make false assumptions about Catholics.

I personally believe it was due to pagan influences and a decrease in knowledge of Jewish instruction of the law and morals. Our faith started in the Synagogues. What do you get when you have an entire culture that is infused with gods and goddesses, lacks correctional knowledge because it scorns its roots, and it is lured by power of state? Many of the things I have an issue with in Catholicism I firmly believe it came from pagan influences. Perpetual virgin due to being a consecrated temple virgin --> this seems to be influenced by the temple Diana and its temple virgins. Patron saints--> seems to be influenced by the idea of gods and goddesses for every need. Depicting Mary as a queen of heaven --> influence of the goddess of Ishtar in Mesopotamia. That's just my opinion.

Without Mary there would be no Jesus. Without Jesus there would be no Christians. Something to ponder. We should all be grateful to Mary for agreeing to be the Mother of the Messiah. She deserves our respect and love. ❤

All of the Catholic arguments for the Marian Dogmas--but especially the assumption--seem like they were made by people who started with their desired conclusion rather than from people seeking the truth.

@@toddthacker8258 Mary produced that TRUTH, that WAY and that source of everlasting LIFE. So, where that TRUTH is, so is Mary also. If Enoch and Elijah who were God's Creations/Prophets taken to heaven and never S see or experience death, what made you thin that the very GOD who made that bodily ascension possible could not make his own MOTHER ascend the way he made them to ascend?

@@michellebryan8148 God certainly could have. There's just no evidence that He did. And there is certainly nothing in Scripture to make us think that Mary should get so much attention that would otherwise be focused on God Himself.

@@toddthacker8258 I’d just suggest, take a read of Behold your Mother and see if you would make the same statement. No one thing is probably going to be a magic pill, but it might be worth checking out. I know many find that Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant is compelling and that’s straight biblical. ✌🏻

Because most of these people are ignorant and intellectually dishonest fundamentalists

I think I'd agree that the cousin relationship idea is plausible though really the only reason you would need to lean into it at all is if you're committed to the other dogmas.

I used to be staunchly opposed to this idea, but after reading the Protovangelion of James, I can see that it could have been the case. Not saying it definitely was, but it made me go from "No, Mary did not remain a virgin," to "Maybe she did, maybe she didn't."

The Immaculate Conception is indicated by the parallel use of eulogemene/eulogemenos (distinction of gender only), in "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." This is the Holy Spirit's expression of the Father's good pleasure in Mary and in Jesus. It is reinforced by "kecharitioene" (full of grace), which has the feminine passive suffix of charitoo- with the prefix ke- indicating an action completed in the past with effects in the present.

Why do we need to believe Mary remained a virgin ... sex within marriage is not a sin ... and the plain reading that Joseph did not 'know' her until after the birth of Christ ... meaning the marriage was not consummated until after that event ... and the references to Christ's brothers and sisters then become simply understood ... and let's not forget Jesus' words that anybody who does the Father's will is His 'mother, brothers and sisters' ... which seems to be Jesus distancing Himself from His biological family rather than say Mary is someone to be elevated above the rest of humanity ...

@@MichaelPetek That seems like a very tenuous and very indirect connection to try to build a damning doctrine off of. Besides, Jesus uses the exact same phrase for woman to refer to people he isn't even related to.

I used to think the Immaculate Conception had to do w/ Jesus being born sinless and perfect. Then I found out that Mary is supposed to be sinless and perfect too. That was shocking. I see no biblical proof of that whatsoever.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 that is precisely what I have thought for years, never thinking it could mean more than that!

@@psylegio I don't see why it needs to mean more than that either? Jesus' virgin birth, his divine nature, being born of God and of a woman in order to be the ultimate redeemer, mediator and savior for our sins is the heart of the gospel. The rest is just gravy.

@@psylegio Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!

The key word, until, does not confirm that they had relations after the birth of Jesus

Why else use the word until? The text could just have said that he never knew her / had relations with her.

@@geordiewishart1683don’t get caught up in the semantics. My mother never smoked until she died!

​@@geoffjs so gimme other context

Ephesus decided the Theotokos, “God Bearer”. Not the assumption, immaculate conception etc. If you don’t believe that Mary have birth to God and that thereby she was the mother of God then you side with the Nestorian Heresy which splits Christ into two people effectively. That really was the point of Ephesus. Also the presider over the council was Cyril of Alexandria who was not from Ephesus. The term “Theotokos” also first comes from Origen of Alexandria. The idea that Ephesus is the origin of the doctrine or any other such Marian dogmas isn’t founded on much other than associations it seems. The term itself comes from Egypt

@@tonywallens2173:40 he talks about that council at Ephesus sort of creating the big stir about Mary, and since it was at Ephesus, I am yes, assuming a little bit that the Artemis part of it could’ve also played a role which we see in Acts 19. Many people at the council from Ephesus would have taken that part about Mary and could have run with it since they would have grown up being taught Artemis from the ground up… so it’s just a plausible correlation to the later fantasies about Mary such as almost Deity-like status (sinless, etc).

read it, love Matthew

The woman is symbolic of Israel

Me too!

I think writings originally attributed to Dionysius have been identified as being 6th century manuscripts written by Pseudo-Dionysius. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to.

Fatima was something that really comforted me, not only in accepting Catholicism, but with accepting the existence of God as well. Atheist now will call it a mass hallucination even though atheists themselves that went there were converted. It was such an amazing miracle!

There's nothing in even the most apocryphal Catholic tradition about Anna being a virgin when she had Mary.

That isn't what the Immaculate Conception means. No one thinks that Mary's mother was a virgin when Mary was conceived. Immaculate Conception means that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of conception.

Jesus is our salvation, but Mary played a vital role. No Mary, no Jesus. She leads us, like a good mother, to her son

Satan played an important role. No fall of man, no redemption of man. Judas played an important role. No betrayal, then no arrest and trial. Joseph's parents played an important role. No Joseph, then no spouse to support Mary and her child. Pilate played an important role. No conviction, then no execution. The tree played an important role. No tree, no crucifixion.

​@@geordiewishart1683i get where you're coming from, just remember not to fall into the trap of devaluing Mary, she's been through so much and was an example of a believer to follow regardless of what you believe... personally I'm not sure what I do but some people speak of Mary so lowly it's really sad and unfair

Apples and Oranges like a mug.

@@Athabrose Well it's different in levels of importance, but not really in that they're all theological categories. Some of the things Gavin says in this video sound a lot like what atheists/unbelievers would say, for example, "Where's the historical evidence for it!?" (the Assumption) is exactly what unbelievers ask about Christ's Ascension. The fact that the Ascension is mentioned explicitly in scripture and the Assumption isn't proves nothing, since Mary's role in salvation history is more hidden than Jesus' and so we would easily expect it to be left out. If you think God would assume the bodies of Enoch and Elijah into paradise, but leave the Mother of God's body to rot in the ground, you aren't thinking biblically. If sola scriptura means sticking only to what's literally written down on the page, and not also what's implied by the text structurally, typologically, spiritually, etc., then sola scriptura is a dead and deadening doctrine. A proper reading of the bible leads you necessarily to the Assumption.

@@pretty-white-lamb mere assertions predicated on preconceived unproved presuppositions like a mug….

@@Athabrose noooo you've exposed me I'm melting....

The problem with the self worshipping protestants is that they not only think they have a better understanding of scripture and of Greek than the early church fathers they also think thye understand better than the Apostles. It's not Holy Scripture that the protestant reveres so much. It his own mind that the protestant worships. It's a western thing of course. You come from a lineage that couldn't learn Greek properly the first time and then barely leaned it the second time. I'm dumbfounded when a modern western intellectual tries to tell me about scripture. My recent family lived on mountainsides and worshipped in secret for up to 500 years in the face of Muslim oppression. They couldn't read or write. They couldn't go home and study scripture. All they had to do for freedom was deny Christ and say Allah u Alkar. They chose the Βασιλική Οδός and they carried their crosses down that path. Glory to God. The protestant has no idea what it means to suffer for Christ. Never will.

"Necessary for salvation" is precisely Catholic teachings regarding belief in the Assumption. This is spelled out in the video. If some Catholics think "let them be anathema" is a joke, that hardly matters to the meat of this issue.

@@joeoleary9010 The purpose of excommunication is to separate the individual from the church to avoid spreading heresy and to inform/shock the sinner into realizing their immortal soul is in jeopardy. This is not a locked door and it’s aim is to bring the individual back into the Church- “‘Necessary for Salvation’ is not how Catholics think or speak”. This view of looking at faith from the negative end is not how most Catholics in my life experience look at eternal life, the Glory of heaven and Beatific vision. Truth Unites recently did a video on the question of “ am I saved’? No disrespect intended, but to me the idea of dwelling on the issue of “being saved” is focusing more on self and what’s going to happen to me? Conversely Catholics are hopeful. Hope is a virtue. As a Catholic if I strive to know, love and serve Him in this life, I will be happy with Him in the next. To ‘know’ and ‘love’ God is seeking Him with sincerity, humility and obedience by grace given us in His sacramental Church.

That’s the biggest issue. By making the dogmas necessary for salvation the RCC has created a huge stumbling block for many potential converts. Many church fathers disagreed on what happened to Mary. Why make this dogma essential for salvation? I’m just as troubled as Gavin is by it. It confuses me.

They refuse believe those.

They don't need to believe in rumours and man-made superstitions. Save that for the RCC

@@HearGodsWord perfect so the Atheists are right then. Christ was never resurrected because that's just man made superstition. There's clearly no evidence whatsoever of either Christ or Mary acting in our world, so who would believe that sort of thing anyway, right?

@@BrohamMCDemons

@@internautaoriginal9951 you shall know them by their fruits. These events have brought more to faith in Jesus, not less. If they were truly demonic supernatural events it would have been obvious. So you either believe that Satan has the power to move the sun about the sky like it's a soccer ball, or you believe everyone at Fatima had a mass hallucination. Again, you sound like an atheist who argues that the apostles were either sincerely mistaken, or hallucinated.

As odd as all the other Christian doctrinal varieties.

@@tookie36 not really. Protestant hold firm primarily to the original Church Deposit, which was absent of medieval accretions such as veneration of saints, purgatory and indulgences which violate Deuteronomy 4:2. - We didn’t add or change anything. We removed developed extra-biblical nonsense to restore the church as it was when it started. There are hardly 30,000; Adventists, Anabaptists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Baptists, Calvinist/Reformed,[h] Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, and Quakers. Nondenominational, charismatic and independent. And really only a hand-full of these adhere to Luther and Calvin original intentions. The current true reformed church adheres to true apostolic succession based on its original definition, which is the passing down of the gospel and teachings of the apostles from Scripture. If we are talking Protestants who engage in rock concerts, you’re going to find almost 100% agreement with a true reformed Protestant on that particular topic. We reformers would never consider them anything related to reformation theology other than just tickled the ear preaching. All TRUE reformed churches adhere to the infallibility of scripture as did the early patristic Fathers. - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) But thankfully, the number of protestants is rivaling that of Roman Catholics in that we are quickly catching up globally at about 800 million. Together that gives us almost 2 billion church figure which is astounding given the global population of 9 billion. But technically, the church is invisible in that its core definition are those who hold faith in Christ alone. Christ said there is only one faith and one church and that is true. But that one faith is saving faith not a declared declarative faith as in some sort of title. The faith is saving faith and the church is those who possess saving faith and these people exist in many churches.

Mary was definitely blessed among women, and scriptures do show that even her cousin Elizabeth knew this by the power of the Holy Spirit when they were both w/ child, so that's a remarkable scriptural proof. I've never been convinced of the ark of the covenant spiritual type. I think that's a new one that has cropped up w/ Catholic apologists like Trent Horn, that were once protestant, and are grasping to convince the sola scriptura camp of Christians. I might be wrong on that last part. If the ark type is historical w/ Catholics, I'd stand corrected.

​@@saintejeannedarc9460the ark type goes back to the church fathers. Hippolytus, Athanasius, and Proclus just to name a few off the top of my head.

@@caseycardenas1668 Ok, then I stand corrected on that, thank you. I think it seems to be newer, because ex protestant Catholics use it so liberally now as tool to reach biblically based Christians. That would seem to be a more fair and correct assessment then.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Gavin himself has stated in prior videos that he believes that Mary is the Ark. I would say your assessment is fair but it also needs to be realized that the contemporary use of Mary as the Ark is prominent because it was always a part of the apostolic faith and even present in early protestantism. It's a response to American Restorationist Movements that have moved away from this view of Mary, it was present in one form or another in 16th century magisterial protestantism.

@@caseycardenas1668 Can you think of a video where Gavin agrees w/ that Mary is the ark? I thought I remembered that he still thinks this type is a stretch, but doesn't need to dismiss it outright. I'm pretty sure it was Gavin, because most protestant apologists aren't that gracious and flexible on it, and ones like James White will just toss it all w/out even smaller concessions. I like James White though. He's a bulldog, but he's our bulldog, lol.

I am Catholic from the cradle and I agree that alot of people show up because of family tradition. Its not like thr church doesn't try to explain the faith though alot of is just don't want to listen. I teach Sunday school now to 6th graders so I see it first hand every week.

What most Catholics do is irrelevant to whether Catholicism is true.

Then there is hope that some "Catholics" might be saved.

Then there is hope that some "Catholics" might be saved.

Anyone can take a family tradition for granted. As a Catholic convert, I take none of it for granted. Jesus be praised.

I was raised Catholic. The broad idea of the rosary is that Mary is the perfect disciple of Jesus. That is, in the NT she is depicted as the most faithful and obedient follower of Jesus. I suppose Protestants could approach the rosary's 50 Ave Marias (Hail Mary prayers) in that light, without the added theology of Mary as an intercessor.

I’m Lutheran and use a Rosary daily. It’s not uncommon among Anglicans and Lutherans. I use it to pray through Psalms, the Lord’s Prayer, other prayers , etc….Jordan Cooper has a RU-vid video on it. I think it’s a great devotional tool. I also have some icons, candles, and a table crucifix in my home prayer space.

@@joeoleary9010 Thank you very much for your viewpoint! Blessings and Happy Father’s Day! I know that Protestants and Catholics have different views of Mary so thank you for your insights! 😄

@@Athabrose Happy Father’s Day! I am familiar with Jordan Copper. It is unique to hear of fellow Protestants looking at icons and using the rosary for prayer. Thank you!!

Why? Are you unable to articulate or understand your own beliefs?

@@geordiewishart1683because we, as lay Catholics, are not doing a good job of convincing skeptical,Protestants! If Protestants knew what riches they’re missing by turning their collective back on Mary, they would drop their reservations - Through Mary to Jesus which I have experienced. Catholicism enjoys the three legged stable stool of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium as well as the other three legged stool of Marian Devotion, Real Presence of the Eucharist & the Holy Spirit. Three legs is a very important concept for engineering, so as to ensure stability! The Trinity is obviously three legged as is Mary ie the New Eve, New Ark & New Queen

Does the EO church approve of these??

Does the EO church approve of these??

Gavin doesn't believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church either, William, so I don't think you are moving the needle much.

@@toddthacker8258 but that's my whole point. Instead of nit-picking individual Catholic doctrines, demonstrating the lack of divine authority of the Catholic Church would bring the entire structure down. However, the problem with attacking the authority of the Catholic Church is trying to keep the authority of Scripture in the process. Gavin's take on how we got the Canon, from the (admittedly) little that I have heard, is that the Canon developed organically and was just accepted over time by Christians as Holy Writ. The documentary evidence for Church councils debating and making declarations on the subject really, really make that idea hard to swallow. As I started to investigate Orthodox and Catholic teaching (as a Reformed Calvinist Presbyterian), I took the same tack. I targeted one specific doctrine after another that I believed was heretical and/or extra-biblical and, thus, not acceptable. As I was not getting the results I wanted - invalidation of Catholic teaching - I decided to go for the jugular - Church authority. When that didn't go the way I wanted either, I had to become Catholic. It wasn't easy. Socially and family-wise, it would have been a lot easier for me to stay Protestant, but that would have been direct disobedience to the Holy Spirit's leading. I'm still open - if anyone can demonstrate that the Catholic Church is NOT Christ's authoritative representative on earth, then I'll revert to being a devout Protestant.

Mary's Dogma is keeping you from being really SAVED? Then, you are a confused Christian.

Why confused? Because you can not identify the importance of Jesus ,,,, NEW ARK.

Besides, what made you think that believing Mary's Dogma would offend God Or lessen your SAlVATION.In fact, it's the other way around.

People who are hesitating of becoming Catholic due to Mary's Dogma is not understanding one thing...... God/Jesus will not be offended just because a person is believing that particular dogma of his chosen WOMAN/NEW ARK who helped/cooperated and participated to bring fulfillment of his Masterplan to bring SALVATION to his sinful creations.It's the other way around... He would be offended if people like Gavin is preaching/leading people away from acknowledging HIS own MOTHER'S important role as his earthly NEW ARK/ABODE and spreading such nonsense, disrespectful teaching esp. when Pastor, like McArthur and others, referring to Mary as PAGAN Goddess. That is blaspheming the very chosen woman who gave FORM to an invisible and formless God.

Logging off....

Apparitions etc should not be part of the discussion as it's a change of subject. Luther loved Mary is likewise a change of subject, ie irrelevant. The encyclical Munificentissimus Deus lays out the reasons why Pius XII originated this dogma in 1950 -- to encourage the faithful to have more respect for the message of Catholicism.

Another thought is as these 4th century claims are popping up where is the push back it was only 300 years earlier. Thats like if I said George Washington was assumed into heaven. Clearly there would be people that would correct me because they would know where the remains are. Dr Gavin should go in search of the body since he is so sure its make believe. Does he think the early church purposely hid her body? We can't say the early church didn't recognize the value in the mother of the Lord since Luke interviewed her for his gospel clearly the early church recognized her part in the story. Why would they not mark her grave?

Strange that you think you know where Peter is buried. Considering there is no proof he was ever in Rome

So many Catholics here, "you should invite this guy, that guy" to save the day with unknown info that legitimizes the Assumption. If you people don't have answers, what make you think Akin, Petrie, or Hahn will have anything worthwhile to contribute?

@@joeoleary9010The argument here is that he should have invited a Catholic. Gavin is not an expert in Catholic theology. At all.

@@joeoleary9010 Not everyone can articulate their beliefs to the degree that a biblical scholar can. Dr Scott Hahn was a Protestant minister and he can explain things more clearly and with the understanding the grave errors of Protestant teachings

See this post, Gabin?Jesus will hold YOU and the other PPastors responsible for their soul. See how your spiritual toxicity is spreading like fire?

@@michellebryan8148 oh it’s spreading like fire alright, burning out the sin of the land

@@Bhope07 Have you seen comments in other videos expressing their own SAVED ALREADY belief saying..... " I can do whatever i want and live however i want to live because Jesus died for my sins" That kind of shallow response is the result of preaching that False FAITH ALONISM doctrine that led them to that false belief and false Pastor like Gabin will be responsible for their deceived and lost souls..

@@Bhope07 And yes, their spiritual toxic teaching are spreading like fire.

@@michellebryan8148 Goodness Michelle, read the Gospels. Jesus said "no man shall come to the Father except by me," not "except by me and my mom." Protestants may be wrong about Mary but it's not a salvivfic issue.

Israel

Can you elaborate on learning Mary was conceived like Jesus from James?

@@littlechildinbigworld Hi, I don't mind translating and putting here some fragments of the book The Protoevangelium of James, but I recommend reading it. "1...And behold, an angel of God appeared and said to her, 'Anna, Anna, the Lord has heard your prayer: you will conceive and give birth, and your offspring will be talked about throughout the world.' Anna answered, 'As the Lord lives "My God, if I ever have any fruit of blessing, whether boy or girl, I will take it as an offering to the Lord and it will be at his service all the days of his life." 2. Then two messengers came with this message for her: «Joachim, your husband, is back with his flocks, for an angel of God has descended to him and said: Joachim, Joachim, the Lord has heard your prayer; therefore, come down from here, let Ana "Your wife is going to conceive in her womb." 3. And when Joachim came down, he ordered his shepherds to bring him ten lambs without blemish: "And these," he said, "will be for the Lord"; and twelve male calves. milk: "And these," he said, "will be for the priests and the Sanhedrin"; and, finally, a hundred goats for all the people. 4. And when Joachim arrived with his flocks, Anna was at the door. When she saw him coming, She began to run and threw herself at his neck, saying: "Now I see that God has blessed me abundantly, for, being a widow, I cease to be one, and, being barren, I am going to conceive in my womb." It seems that her daughter Mary was going to live a very similar experience when conceiving Jesus in the future.

No, we don’t believe that. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son."

A person who could understand the meaning of the Greek terms eulogemene and kecharitomene could easily conclude that Mary was sinless. A person could find proof that Mary had one child, but no proof that she had any more or that she lost her virginity at any time after the birth of her first. You could find plenty material in the OT to indicate that the Queen of the House of David was the mother of the King, not his wife. You could combine Luke 1:43 with John 20:28 to prove syllogistically that Mary is the Mother of God.

@@MichaelPetek Kecharitomene doesn’t work… even Trent acknowledges that the Greek word used for Mary does not in itself show that she is sinless, that word is also used in apocryphal books. Nobody in the early church used the Greek word to show that Mary was sinless, and that word doesn’t show that she is sinless in any shape or form as Horn even acknowledges that and many others. It’s not a good argument and there are countless verses that make it very clear that Jesus Christ was the only man without sin.

@@ProtestantKing7 Kecharitomene on its own isn't conclusive. It means that Mary was completely transformed by grace in the past, with effects continuing to the present - that meaning is contained in the ke- prefix. The effect is indicated by eulogemene. The -mene suffix is feminine passive singular. The -menos prefix is masculine passive singular and in the NT is used only on two occasions and only of Jesus - as in 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." In "eulogemenoi", the -menoi suffix is the mixed gender plural, and is found in "Come, you who are blessed of my Father." In all these constructions, the root euloge- indicates definitive and irrevocable benediction proper to the Last Judgement. Mary received her final judgement while she was pregnant and in this life.

@@MichaelPetek If Mary was really sinless, you wouldn't need to do hoop de loops w/ original language to find vague and inconclusive allusions and hidden inferences. If it was as all important as the RCC makes out, by making it dogma that has to be believed, then the bible would clearly say it. Jesus is said to be sinless and it's laid out many times, in black and white, clearly seen and understood, no matter what language the text is translated into. When God wants us to really know and understand something, he makes it that plain.

@@MichaelPetek it doesn’t mean anything special and like I pointed out it’s also used in apocryphal books

shallow understanding of Samuel's verse.The Israelite worship OTHER FAlSE GOD'S statues. Mary was/is NOT our OTHER falSE GODDESS since she was/is the MOTHER of the GODman. Didn't know that on a deeper level?Now, you know.

A typical protestant expressing her shallow understanding of the bible.Sadly, there are thousands of you spreading your ignorance here on you tube.

NO wonder why Millions like you are wandering and lost.

@@michellebryan8148 the Ark was not a false god. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant- response was a light hearted comment as to why there are no writings. Not sure I’m following your line of thinking?

@@marlam8625 It requires DEEPER understanding of ALL verses in the bible.DEEP and not shallow. More later.have some chores to do...

God wills that Mary is respected and honoured. There are many protestants who cannot preach on their own faith, but have to point fingers at the Church founded by God. Mary has revealed prophecies that are remarkably accurate. You are still just a grasshopper. You say Sola Scriptura and then quote some obscure guys who you say were church fathers, but were not. You are a great example of why people need the Church (Catholic) to interpret things.

Your comparison of Elijah to Mary highlighted your false complaint

Probably: a) because their assumptions are in Scripture, whereas Mary's death is not addressed; and b) the Catholic Church doesn't force me to believe in their assumptions to be saved.

Because of Occam's razor

@@MegaVincenzo13 "Mary has revealed prophecies...' no, no she doesn't.

It doesn't.

Sola scriptura, never took hold in the church.

@@HearGodsWord I don't know if you should bother correcting someone who's username is "the fucking lindo"

@@tategarrett3042 waiting for the correction

@tategarrett3042 good point 👍

The vast importance that the Roman church assigns to her and the role she plays in salvation, whereas the scarce info found in the NT about her is a massive eyebrow raiser.

No, it's an argument from "if you want to damn people to hell for not believing it your evidence needs to be solid." Understand the epistles are as much an apologetic of the faith as it is a manual of it. Why would something so allegedly important to the faith be excluded from its defense? The writers go out of their way to build a defense of the resurrection, salvation, sanctification, of how Jesus is the Messiah, ect, but it woefully absent on the vary thing Catholic doctrine says if you don't you will go to hell??? Sorry, but that's just as fantastical as saying the devil is just a misunderstood good angel.

@@alishavogel7926 You are equally in trouble if you deny Jesus has two wills or two natures and is of the same substance as the father. I suggest you will find little evidence of those doctrines in the epistles as well. Your argument also applies to a lot of things. I am damned for not accepting a form of sola fide which I would argue has 0 evidence, let alone air tight evidence. Maybe you also mean that that isn't damnable either, but I suggest that unless your faith consists of some kind of mushy vague idea of Jesus and salvation, you are going to come to the point where you believe people are damned for not believing in something which is argued to be based on scant to no evidence.

@@choicemeatrandy6572 But this standard would apply to many doctrines, not just the Marian doctrines. It is helpful to start thinking about these standards, but j would humbly suggest that something more specific would have to rule out the Marian dogmas or you unnecessarily threaten to toss out other less controversial teachings that many Cheistians share.

@@notavailable4891 I would disagree that the epistles have little evidence. They are told from a Jewish standpoint so a firm understanding of what we call the Old Testament would have also been essential. It is especially evident when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for not understanding who he was with all they knew. That tells me that information wasn't hidden nor surprising, the pharisees were just blinded. The Shema and Isaiah 53address the items you listed. And I'm also not disputing that there are 2nd and 3rd tier issues that people mistakenly make into salvic issues. Regarding faith alone, I explain that by (and sorry for the analogy, I haven't come up with something better 😅), that faith and works essentially work like a fertilized egg and a placenta. Faith is the fertilized egg, the new human, but you must have a placenta in order for the human to grow and develop and live. That placenta is works. Faith without works is dead just like a unborn child without a placenta dies. However, the placenta doesn't come before conception, only after. We have salvation by faith alone, but that should produce works of which is the evidence of faith and if you don't produce works, your faith is dead like a baby dies if there is no placenta.

Or go to any approved Marian apparition site to experience her.

This apologetic is essentially one massive deflection. It is a way of avoiding fact questions. And it does this by side-stepping the historical reality of what is being discussed in favor of a generic "they must be right in general, therefore they must be right about this." But that logic doesn't move beyond the realm of pious narrative, especially in the presence of competing claims.

For me, your statement raises far more questions than it provides answers. Self identification as a Christian brings one under the authority of the Church, under elders, under judgement and under the command to restore repentant sinners. The question of who is a true Christian, is one for the Lord upon His return, sorting the wheat from the tares. So, we can never and should never take our salvation for granted. How can a person be watchful and careful if anyone should say, it's ok, we've judged you saved already? Yet, over silly nonsense, Rome has pronounced damnation on millions! It's foolish to rely on theological bable, won't the Lord judge the heart? Be true to the light you have and trust Jesus to speak to His bride.

@@lazaruscomeforth7646 no deflection at all. My answer to the questions I pose is the Church - which we beelieve to be Christ. Jesus was not recognized for who He was in His time and that remains true today. What is your answer to the questions I posed? Please be specific. Until one understands where the authority of dogmas come from they will deny the scriptural interpretations laid out by the Church on Marian dogmas.

We listen to Jesus and are led and guided into all truth through the bible. The bible is said to be the very word of God, Christ is the word of God. Our reading of the NT shows us that we can individually be led by the Holy Spirit. We sit under elders, teachers, pastors, priests to be taught and fed, but our ultimate walk w/ God is a personal one. There were many church bodies laid out in the NT. The were exhorted to be united in Christ. We are all united in Christ.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 who has the proper bible interpretation? Who had the authority to pick the books of the Bible?