Top Objections to Mary's Perpetual Virginity [REBUTTED] 

When Jesus is on the cross, he tells John to take Mary into his house and care for her. This would have been the responsibility of her other sons if she had them

Trent you’re really growing on me brother. As a Protestants I definitely have a lot more respect for Catholicism

The quote from John Chrysostom was extremely helpful and reflects how the Church understood these questions long before the innovations of the Reformers.

Thank you for always answering and rebutting our Protestant brothers & sisters with respect and charity.

I just point out Martin Luther and the other Protestant reformers advocating for Mary’s perpetual virginity. That’s all.

You know Trent’s not going to be going easy on you when he calls your argument allegedly sophisticated

In all my Catholic education, somehow I have never heard the argument that Mary accepting John as a son is a proof she didn’t have any others to take care of her. It’s brilliant. Also didn’t know that Luther believed in perpetual virginity. Great video. Bless you, Trent.

"Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." -Martin Luther, _That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew_ "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned." -John Calvin, _Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke,_ vol. 2, sec. 39 "Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity." -John Calvin, _Commentary on John_ (7:3) "I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity." -Huldreich Zwingli, _Mary, Ever Virgin, Mother of God,_ 1524 "I believe…He [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." -John Wesley, _Letter to a Roman Catholic_ “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26-27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” -Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), _Commentary on Matthew_ “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the _ever-virgin_ Mary." -Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373), _Discourses Against Arius_ “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband." -Augustine of Hippo (354-430), _On Heresies_ “But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, _ever-virgin,_ by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man.” -Hippolytus of Rome (170-235), _Against Beron and Helix,_ Fragment 8 Edit: Included the works from which these quotes were drawn from, and added a quote from Hippolytus of Rome.

It always baffles me how 20th-century Protestants pretend to know more about ancient greek than the Founding fathers of the Catholic Church who actually used Greek every day. Even years later, in the Nicene Concil, all who participated spoke and used ancient greek as their standard language. They didn't make mistakes in translation. They knew perfectly well what they were doing.

Athanasius strongly defended Mary's virginity after the birth of Jesus

James White really hates that he is not the authority on earth.

Awesome video Trent. I used to be a Protestant who believed and made the same arguments as James. I am so happy and grateful that I have become Catholic.

Thank you for all the wonderful work you do. Very grateful.

Thank you for such deep and easily understood clarification! It really made so much sense to me. Thank you! ❤

Nice job Trent! Also love the editing, well done!

I think this whole discussion shows the danger of adhering to doctrine which has as its barrier to entry "its not emphatically contradicted by the Bible." While we do not have an explicit denial of Mary's perpetual virginity, this is kind of like a cumulative case that seems to make this quite unlikely. For starters, we do not have any evidence of Joseph having multiple children prior to his engagement to Mary. None of the children accompany their father to Bethlehem or Egypt. None of the children are mentioned at all any Gospel until Jesus was an adult, which is at least probative evidence that they were not born yet. There is no mention of Joseph having been previously married, or being so advanced in age that his children were already adults. In fact, we have good evidence that the children were not significantly older than Jesus since they are all referred to as his contemporaries in the Gospel of John. Jesus entrusting Mary to John's care is not a terribly compelling counterargument, since Jesus often went against established customs and norms of his day. In fact, he explicitly denies Mary and his siblings in Matthew when he points out that it is those who obey the will of the Father that are his brothers, sisters and mother. Further, John was historically the disciple who was closest to Jesus, of whom Jesus could have given this commission as a sign of his close bond. There is not much of a reason to believe that the siblings were actually cousins. The bible has a word for cousin, and it used in Luke to describe Elizabeth. As far as I am aware this language is not used to describe Jesus' siblings. So, the case in favor of Mary having children by Joseph after Jesus: - No children mentioned prior to Jesus birth, during the trips to bethlehem or egypt - No mention of Joseph being previously married - Matthew 1:25 (I know this was the topic of the video, but the video is trying to offer an alternate reading to the plain reading of the text. this text is still evidence for Mary having additional children). - Children mentioned after Jesus is grown, and described as his peers. On most occasions they are grouped with or accompanying Mary, which doesn't seem like a plausible grouping if he was not related to them and they were also not related to Mary. The case against: - Jesus asked John to care for Mary, instead of his siblings, in contravention of custom There are theological reasons for being skeptical of this teaching as well. The catholic church teaches that "Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh." See also the Catechism 2362. Now I know that the church teaches deliberately celibate marriage is a thing, but solely because of the obvious problem that consummation would cause for Mary and Joseph when teaching perpetual virginity. I am not aware of any biblical or natural theology reason to hold that a marriage can be valid without consummation. But that is an aside. If the purpose of marriage is to unite the two to become one flesh and procreate, it is difficult to see how Mary and Joseph's marriage can be considered ordered in any sense of the term according to catholic theology itself. As usual, the bible itself does not help catholic teaching in this regard. 1 Cor. 7 for example, explicitly tells married persons not deprive each other of their conjugal rights except for temporary purposes. Thus, it is difficult to reconcile how sex within marriage could be a necessary and good thing ordered by God, but was not enacted between Mary and Joseph, but yet they could still be considered married. Why marry at all? If the thought process is that having marital relations with Joseph would taint Mary's supposed sinlessness (which raises other problems), why would Mary and Joseph get married at all, since this would perpetuate to others that she was participating in some form of sinful behavior (since everyone else would assume this is a normal marriage). The concept of a celibate marriage was entirely foreign to Jewish culture as far as I am aware. This teaching also has the unfortunate side effect of making married persons choose between being Holy (and abstaining) and giving into their sexual desires and procreating (which is one of the goods of marriage). I unfortunately cannot see a way to reconcile these conflicts. You cannot say that procreation and conjugal intimacy are goods that are ordered from marriage, but then claim that Mary did not engage in such goods within her marriage because . . . she was good? Either marriage relations are not good under any circumstances (and are I guess a necessary evil for procreation?) and therefore all sexual unions are disordered, or they are good (which is what is taught by the bible AND the catholic church) in which case Mary and Joseph denied these goods and perpetrated a sham marriage, in which they were not made one flesh. If the purpose of this doctrine is to demonstrate Mary was sinless, then she should have remained unmarried, like Jesus. Note that Jesus did not get married and remained celibate. TL;DR The cumulative evidence in the Bible strongly suggests that Mary had additional children by Joseph, and lived a normal married life with her spouse and children. While it is possible that she had no other children and the siblings mentioned in the gospels were not related to Jesus at all, it is not all that plausible. The concept of perpetual virginity is in conflict with catholic and biblical teachings on the goods and purposes of marriage and sex within marriage, and does not seem to serve any purpose theologically beyond perpetrating a doctrine that Mary was sinless. This of course implies all sex in any context (including marriage for procreative purposes) is sinful and disordered.

Judas, James the lesser, Simon and Joseph were the sons of Joseph's elder brother Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Clophas. Jesus says in "The poem of The Man God " to mystic Maria Valtorta....." The last vision clarifies a detail quoted twice in the Gospel by Matthew, a sentence which is repeated twice: “Get up, take the Child and His Mother with you, and escape into Egypt”; “Get up, take the Child and His Mother with you and go back to the land of Israel.” And you saw that Mary was by Herself in Her room with the Child. Mary's virginity after Her delivery and Joseph's chastity have been strongly denied by those who being putrid mud themselves, are not prepared to admit that one like them can be as pure and clear as light. They are wretched people whose souls are so corrupted and their minds so prostituted to the flesh, that they are incapable of thinking that one like them can respect a woman seeing in her not her flesh but her soul, neither can they elevate themselves to live in a supernatural atmosphere, craving not for what is flesh, but only for what is God. Well, I wish to tell those deniers of the most beautiful things, those worms incapable of becoming butterflies, those reptiles covered with the slaver of their own lewdness, incapable of understanding the beauty of a lily, I wish to tell them that Mary was and remained a virgin, and that only Her soul was married to Joseph, exactly as Her spirit was united only to the Spirit of God by Whose deed She conceived Her Only Son: I, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Father and of Mary. This is not a tradition embellished afterwards, out of loving respect for the Blessed Virgin Who was My Mother. It is the truth and has been known since early times. Matthew was not born after centuries. He was a contemporary of Mary. Matthew was not a poor ignorant man brought up in a forest and likely to believe any idle story. He was a clerk in the taxation office, as you would say nowadays, he was an excise man, as we said then. He could see, hear, understand, and tell the truth from the false. Matthew did not hear things reported by third parties. He heard them directly from Mary's lips to Whom he applied for information, prompted by his love for his Master and for the truth.I do not believe that those repudiators of Mary's inviolability will dare think that She may have lied. My own relatives could have given Her the lie, had there been other children: James, Judas, Simon and Joseph were disciples together with Matthew. Therefore Matthew could have easily compared their versions, had there been more than one account. But Matthew does not say: “Get up and take your wife.” He says: “Take His Mother.” Before he says: “A virgin betrothed to Joseph”; “Joseph Her spouse”. Neither those repudiators of Purity should tell Me that it was a way of speaking particular to the Jews, as if to say “wife” was a disgrace. No, deniers of Purity. At the very beginning of the Bible we read: “And he will join himself to his wife.” She is called “companion” up to the moment of the sensual consummation of the marriage, and afterwards she is called “wife” in various circumstances and in different chapters. And these are the expressions referred to the wives of the sons of Adam. And so Sarah is called the “wife” of Abraham: “Sarah your wife”. And: “Take your wife and your two daughters” is said of Lot. And in the book of Ruth it is written: “The Moabitess, the wife of Mahalon”. And in the first book of the Kings it is said: “Elkanah had two wives”. And further on: “Elkanah then had intercourse with his wife Hannah”. And again: “Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife”. And again in the Book of the Kings it is said: “Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, became the wife of David and bore him a son.” And what do you read in the blue book of Tobias, what the Church sings to you at your wedding, to advise you to be holy in your marriage? You read: “Now when Tobias arrived with his wife and his son… ”; and again: “Tobias succeeded in escaping with his son and with his wife.” And in the Gospels, that is in times contemporary with Christ, when therefore they wrote in a modem style of language, as compared to the ancient kind, and therefore no error of transcription could be suspected, it said and just by Matthew in Chapter 22: “… and the first, after marrying his wife died and left his wife to his brother.” And Mark at Chapter 10: “The man who divorces his wife…” And Luke called Elizabeth the wife of Zacharias for four times running, and in the eighth Chapter of his Gospel he says: “Johanna, the wife of Chuza”. As you can see, this name was not a word banished by those who walked in the ways of the Lord, it was not an impure word not worthy of being uttered and least of all written when there was a mention of God and of His wonderful work. And the angel, saying: “The Child and His Mother”, proves to you that Mary was His real Mother. But She was not a wife of Joseph. She remained forever: “The virgin betrothed to Joseph”. And this is the last teaching of the vision. And it is a halo which shines on the heads of Mary and Joseph. The Inviolate Virgin. The just and chaste man. The two lilies amongst whom I grew up, receiving only the perfume of purity".

Hey, when showing the words of John Chrysostom, it looks like some AI art was paired with it. If there is an older historical illustration/icon of an important figure [within public domain], I suggest using that to depict them instead.

This is an excellent point. Thank you Trent.

Concise, detailed and and easy to follow. Trent, thank you for this. As as I’ve said in the past, I’d love to have you on my channel sometime. Perhaps before autumn.

This really shouldnt be a Catholic vs Protestant debate, both John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary and Calvin often refers to her as the Blessed Virgin in his writings.

One of the reasons why Mary's Perpetual Virginity matters is because it's in direct correlation with the Divinity of Jesus being the True Son of God a.k.a. God Himself as the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity Godhead. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant carried the Real Presence of God inside, therefore the Ark itself was so holy and sacred, no one was allowed to touch it as it was to be kept pure and unblemished, only the high priest was allowed near it. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant because by the grace of God she carried the New Covenant and High Priest who is JESUS. Mary's Perpetual Virginity (and Immaculate Conception) bestowed upon her by God is in connection with this fact that Jesus is truly God - The same God who was present in the old Ark of the Covenant is the same God who is present in the New Ark of the Covenant, therefore the New Ark of the Covenant is to be kept holy and sacred, pure and unblemished, touched by no one = Mary's Perpetual Virginity (and Immaculate Conception). Hence, why we defend Our Blessed Mother as Our Lord God Jesus defends her. Defending Our Lady IS defending Our Lord.

This was a really great video. Thank you.

As someone converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, this was very informative. Thank you for your time.

Trent could you please do I response to that Kyle orthodox guy. I’m absolutely tired of him showing up in my feed attacking the Catholic Church and I need someone to rebuke him.

However, as John Meier wrote, when Jesus says "who is my mother and who is my brother" loses its force if it means counsins. Also, Paul knows the difference between the Greek words cousins and brothers.

You are greatly appreciated here Trent, thank you.

Great editing.

Trent Horn to James White “How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man”

Thanks for shouting out the Eastern Churches perspective on this. Christ is risen!

What I love about you, Trent. Is you maintain a charitable view of the matter at hand. Christianity is about love. Sometimes I am confused when one believer "attacks" another believer just to make a point. God bless!

Godspeed, Mr. Trent!

The only evidence I need is the utter ubiquity of belief in the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity until vanishing recently.

Baby wake up Trent posted another rebuttal

Literally doing a Dialogue about this thank you Trent!!!

Thanks much for this video.

Protestant take: Meaning is determined by its (immediate) context. We should look at all the occurrences of "héos" in Matthew first. Only then you can consider other examples, with those of the same period considered first. All the occurrences in e.g. Matthew 2 clearly indicate a change (v. 9, 13, 15). Regarding Matthew 28:20, Jesus gave his disciples the command to preach and make disciples. It is clear that he meant he is with us doing this work until the completion of the age. Because after the completion of the age it won’t be necessary anymore to preach and make disciples. So it also won’t be necessary for Jesus to be with us doing that work (because that work has ceased then). Regarding the example from Acts 25:21, what makes the most sense is that the procurator refers to Paul being held in Caesarea until he was sent off. Tertullian did not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. Clement of Alexandria did though, basing this belief on the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal work.

I feel like the AI doesn’t thumbnail was unnecessary. Good vid tho keep up the good work 🫡🫡

It's interesting how the meaning and even subtleties of a term can change so much, as the etymology of ἀδελφός is directely related to the idea of "one who has shared the womb" (from a copulative ἀ + δελφύς, "womb"). So that the term came to denote fatherly half-siblings is a reversal of sorts!

Wow very well done. At the end of the day, I don't think objections come from lack of proof, but from what people are used to. People I've talked with that differ in belief on this subject don't seem to care enough to want to think something other than what they were taught or grew up with, even if it might not be true.

modern Protestants seem to just pick and choose what they want to believe, even if it means casting aside their own founders, which I suppose is what draws so many to those multitudinous sects.

I don’t get why Mary’s perpetual virginity is so important to believe though. The Bible doesn’t give a ton of evidence either way, so it seems not that important in light of other doctrine.

Today is the feast of St. Matthias and I was reading Acts 1: 14-15. It's quite telling that verse 14 talks about Our Lord's brethern (adelphos), and _in the very next verse_ has Peter talking to a hundred plus people as brethren (again, adelphos).

The Adelphoi explanation is a devastating blow to this protestant argument. It is a blow that this argument should now never see the light of day.

Oh, look. James White dislikes Mary. What's new?

This is really unconvincing to literally anyone not bought into this concept. Think of it this way, if no one had ever suggested Mary’s perpetual virginity and Trent came along and declared this doctrine using this video to convince you, would you be convinced? Also, a massive problem with how Horn argues is there is never any ambiguity, never any hard passages we can’t explain. It’s all pat.

love the Gustav Dore illustrations.

Ezekiel 44 tells about the prophetic temple which is god. The lord said tbis gate must remain closed.it must not be opened and no one should come through it. Because the lord the god of Israel came through it, it must remain close. Mary is the gate. St Jerome commented on this text against the Pelagians. Only Christ opened the close doors of the virginal womb, which continued to be remained closed, however. This is the closed eastern gate,through which only the high priest may enter and exit and which nevertheless is always closed.

If she had other sons why were they so terrible as to be worse than the unrepentant for not taking care of her when Jesus died? If scripture says not taking care of your aging parents is one of the worst things a person can do, why then did every single one of these mysterious siblings fall so low as to refuse their own mother and she had to be given to the care of John? And nobody even thinks to talk about them, ever.

Good gravy, talk about debating down to letters :/ Is that why there are thousands of denominations?

I’m on my journey to becoming Catholic. This video is GREAT! Thank you very much. I come from a Southern Baptist Protestant background. Could someone in the comments please help me with a question thorough, I heard someone give an argument that Joseph couldn’t have had other kids before mother Mary because then that would mean that Jesus was not the heir to David. How would this point be refuted?

About the brothers argument, Russian treats cousins in a similar way; they are a kind of sibling, dvoyurodnyy brat and dvoyurodnaya sestra (second-tier brother and sister). Often, they cut this out and just call cousins brothers and sisters.

As a protestant, I have two questions regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. 1) Why do catholics care so much? It doesn't seem relevant at all. 2) Why would Mary refusing to sleep with her husband not be sinful?

As a prot Mary is a perpetual virgin.

Trent still looks like a high-school teenager 😂😂😂 mad respect for his way of presenting a premise then n argument 👏👏👏u make us proud Trent

Thanks for the video Trent. I am confused with the St clement example? It seems the "until" is referring to the 30 years. As in there were 30 years before the suffering. It seems to be talking about how many years before he began suffering.

Why would Luke 2:7 bother identifying Jesus as Mary's firstborn if she had no other children?

The bizarre thing here is that using the “normative” definition of brother to mean “full siblings sharing in common both the same mother and father” in respect to the brothers Jesus wouldn’t just defeat Mary’s perpetual virginity, it would destroy Christianity. You’d have to conclude that either Christ had Joseph as his biological father in common with his siblings or that Christ’s siblings were all begotten of God.

Trent, Svendsen already dealt with that use of heos hou in Acts 25. The change of circumstances is that Paul was no longer kept in Jerusalem.

Excellent and thought-provoking response! this means my only remaining objection to perpetual virginity is that despite its earliest attestation being Gnostic in origin, the reason it was so readily adopted by the Fathers so early could be due to Greco-Roman taboos around s3x. Roman elites especially viewed it as a weakness and shameful thing to be tempted by and generally praised celibacy.

Trent Horn, defending the faith from people who don’t have the brainpower to tear it down.

Thanks for uploading this, yesterday I made a comment I was struggling with the Catholic doctrines relating to Mary, and the Papacy so I appreciate this upload. However, having listened I still don’t feel compelled to agree in the perpetual virginity of Mary, in fact I feel less sure of it. Perhaps though, I am less sure of the Protestant position now also, what I can say for certainty: the Bible doesn’t seem to care about this topic all that much, had it been the case, the answer would be much clearer than it is. The best outcome seems to be that the perpetual or non-perpetual virginity of Mary appears to be a non-issue. She was, or she wasn’t. It makes no odds to Christian doctrine or our spiritual life aside from the apparent deification of Mary that is common in many Catholic communities.

Hello! Non religious here, trying to learn. Whats the importance of Mary's perpetual virginity to catholic theology?

Hello Trent! How can we contact you in private? Thanks!

This man really tries to logic his way out of what it plainly says to keep a doctrine that’s not biblical.

The argument that "until" in Mt 1:25 is used in the same way as in 2 Samuel is stupid, because it only makes sense that the word "until" does not include a reversal of condition when it is used to say that someone haven't managed to achieve something or do something until his death, but Mt 1:25 is not saying "until his death"

Protestant here: Why would Mary choose to remain a virgin after being married? Also, if she isn't an eternal virgin, that doesn't hurt her status at all. It just means Mary and Joseph did what married people do and that is in no way wrong. Even if by the text of the Bible you can't fully confirm she is not a perpetual virgin, that doesn't automatically mean she was one. I think just based off normal human activity after marriage it seems more likely she did not remain virgin.

It just doesn't make sense that Mary was Joseph's WIFE and they didn't have marital relations. Marriage presuposes sexual relation. just read what Jesus said on Matthew 19:1-6 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

FACTS: Answer: Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 name four men called Jesus' brethren: James, Joses (short for Joseph Jr.), Simon, and Judas called Jude. Verse 56 mentions that Jesus had sisters. The sisters are not named, but since the word is plural there were at least two of them. ----FACT: Mitzvot #124 Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations from your wife. (Exodus 21:10) #125. To have children from her. (Genesis 1:28) Mary MUST obey that Jewish law!!!! Otherwise she is disobeying God, which then makes her a sinner!!!!!! 1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital ... ABSOLUTELY NO Vow ever mentioned of abstinence!!! Regardless, had she kept herself from her husband, she is thus a sinner for disobeying God Mitzvot #125!!!! Also, FACT: 1 John 1:8-10 ESV If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Who claims Mary remained simnless?? NOT MARY!!!! Catholics claim it, thus that means they are the liars!! Romans --for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. By claiming Mary was sinless, you are SAYING GOD is liar!!!!

Jesus was the last in the line of King David.

To my knowledge the first use of the term adelphos in the LXX is in Genesis 4:2, where it is used of Abel being the brother of Cain. Also to my knowledge some ancient Hebrew and Christian writings, and some modern day teachers (the Shepherd's Chapel) share a view that says Cain is the son of Satan, while Abel is the son of Adam, this would mean that the very first use of the word adelphos is applied to half brothers who share the same mother, but have different fathers.

I don't know if the creator of this video or anyone of any side will see this but I myself am confused now. All of these comments after almost 3 hours of debate between the Catholic and Protestant livestream 8 months ago on another channel has boiled to a bloody choking war with each other. "How dare you hereticals leave the CC you are doomed for Hell" "you are not a real believer unless youre a catholic youre not with Christ" is the entire message and feeling I get from the catholics and then protestants just fighting again over this. I am new to this and Im just so confused and honestly afraid a little. I don't understand why these denominations we hold have to be so crucial and condemning. I want to follow Jesus Christ and what He says. I Want to give my life and heart to Him by following what the Word says. I dont have a church home. I don't have a denomination. I just struggled (still do) with horrible porn addictions and just cried out to Christ to save me and to change my life forever. I want to ve saved. Many times ive said this and done this, that I truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God. That He is God that came down and died for our sins. He took the punishment we rightfully deserved and bore it on Himself. His holy precious blood was shed for us so that we are saved. Then He rose again on the third day and now the power of sin is beaten and death has no sting. Christ Is Risen and He is Victorious. So why, why does everyone have to condemn others if I believe the Gospel and want to follow Jesus? Why am I doomed for not being a Catholic or in the CC. I just dont understand and I want to understand, I trust Jesus and not Man, so why are we at each others necks....i want to sob because this isnt making me assured in anything except that I want to be with Jesus forever and to get rid of this disgusting habitual sin of lust and I cant without Him. I want to serve Christ. Someone help...i will not abandon Christ I will not say ,"this is too complicated I will just leave" i just want to know why im demonized or a heretic or a true non believer or a false convert for not having a denomination or anything like that..i want to follow Jesus to my death..by faith..

This is nonsense. Sorry, so even if they are adopted brothers, we are to believe Joseph ceased sexual intercourse with the wife? The stretch we go to defend our pet theories

These are the same people who argue "this is My Body" does not mean "this is My Body." I do like Paul says and admonish them once, twice, and then have nothing more to do with them.

I think its absolutely ridiculous to expect Mary to have been a perpetual virgin, its this nonsense that gives Catholics a bad name. She was a great woman, the mother of God, but she was also a wife, and there is nothing but bizarre wishful thinking to suggest she wasn't a wife in the full sense. This argument comes close to the deification of Mary.

Trent, your point at 7:40 doesn't really make sense. Of course "full sibling" had a specific word, but there's never been an instance where someone had a mother but no father as in Jesus case. Furthermore, the people in the new testament who Jesus is talking to DIDN'T KNOW who Jesus was or that he didn't have an earthly father, so why would they have used any other word for Jesus brother other than full siblings? Is it maybe because they knew mary had other sons?

Can we make a distinction between historic reformed and “reformed” baptists like James White? I’m Presbyterian and our confessions, to varying degrees, affirm the ever virgin Mary.

Oof, that AI thumbnail...

How do I email Trent Horn?

I find this fascinating. As a somewhat new Christian I never heard the idea that the Catholics believe Mary was a virgin until she died. It seems to facilitate the Catholic doctrine that Mary is holy or Divine they had to apply these limitations on her. But nowhere in scripture does God command mary to never consummate her marriage with Joseph. To most people it would seem reasonable that a married couple would do so. But as non-catholic Christians it is something that has never even occurred to us or bear thinking about.

I have never understood the Protestant insistence on attacking the perpetual virginity of Mary. They already don't lend her much importance, so there's no reason for them to go out of their way to attack her further. Their theology is not affected by her virginity in any way. Yet so many seem so compelled to tear down everything and anything about Mary. Tonight I'm going to pray for reparations to her Immaculate Heart.

I do not know how you have patience for having to continually fight off these idiots. I just don’t have the patience for them.

Good video Trent. However, the best video on Mary’s perpetual virginity that I have seen is the one by Joe Heschmeyer.

Thank you.

Yeah not a fan of the AI art

That's not an AI thumbnail is it? Please don't use AI generated artwork.

The simple fact that Protestants argue with Catholics and other Protestants about what the Bible really says is evident that Sola Scriptura is false and the bible requires an interpretor. Once you realize that, you only need to figure out who the correct interpretor or Scripture is. Well, obviously, it's the Catholic Church since that's the source from how it came to be.

Why didn't it say James, Joses, Juda, Simon, James, and John? - If the western view is correct, and they are His cousins in Mark 6:3, and if it's true that Salome is the sister of Mary (John 19:25, Matthew 27:56), then what would be the understanding of why James and John (who would also be His cousins, they being the sons of Zebedee and Salome), are not named along with these other supposed cousins James, Joses, Juda, and Simon in Mark 6:3?

Joseph knew her not until after jesus’s birth! An unconsummated marriage is not a marriage. Also there is no Bible/ theological need for Mary to remain a virgin after the messiah was born?

Genuine question: why does this matter?

when White is so predictable Jimmy Akins had prepared slides for each response.

Could it be that christ brothers were referred to adoptively because they didnt have the same father? But did have the same mother? Its possible right?

1:07 Protestant, but enjoy your content, but right here we have an issue. The example of “until” in Greek not always implying a reversal is not equivalent, as the context of the two are different. In the case of Mary, she lived past the time that “until” specifies and would be fully able, and in my view of marriage encouraged to have more children, but your example is “until death” at which point there is no way to to have children without a resurrection miracle.

Why would she have remained a virgin? Titles often stay true after someone's death and the fact that she miraculously had a baby as a virgin would certainly qualify. What stopped me from being Catholic is realizing i have to submit to so many weird theological leaps such as this, Mary being sinless, and transtantuation (or however you say it).

Courteous, cool, calm, collected ... and conclusive. But above all, unflappably charitable. Good on ya', brother Trent. Thanks for clearing that up.

Very good.

Is that an AI thumbnail? Sorry to the artist if that's just their style, but if it's AI then ew. Please use real artwork. Edit: Thanks for changing it!

Iam not super educated in the topic, but I wonder why catholics think of mary as perpetual virgin in the first place. Why is that? What is the problem with josephs and her marriage being 'normal' after jesus' birth? EDIT: Thank you guys for your replies. That really helps understand the catholic position. Also i did not want to make it sound heretical or anything with my replies, sorry if it came across that way. And i also understand that my arguments wont change a viewpoint that has been cultivated for that long. HOWEVER as someone who holds scripture above church tradition, i did not find the arguments for her eternal virignity very convincing, because scripture does not make it as clear. And that's not just my opinion. A biblical marriage includes sex even if a temporary vow to abstination is made and i dont really see an argument as to why this particular marriage should be different. APART from that i can be wrong of course, but that is no problem for me. If at the end of my life God tells me, that i was wrong about marys virginity then thats okay with me because i dont think that's a lifesaving truth or anything like that. Y'all have a blessed day :)

In relation to the heos hou argument, I've yet to hear from a Protestant apologist the explanation of WHY the relative pronoun changes the meaning in any syntactical or grammatical way, nor have I heard of any study of other words for "until" when paired with a relative pronoun compared to without the relative pronoun (I think one of the was "mechri" vs "mechri hou")

The new editor really is amazing. Thank you all