Isn't the Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 the first Council? I mean it was a group of people deciding on beliefs so technically it meets the requirements, right?
@@Brandonf98 But it acknowledged a doctrinal change in ALL Christianity, People from other places went to Jerusalem to decide if circumcision was required in Christianity.
Inaccurate view of councils. Councils aren’t right or wrong dependent on whether they contradict Scripture or not. The whole reason councils are convened is because there is a disagreement on what the Scripture says! The Arians had their verses to support their heresies too but Nicaea overruled their interpretation of Scripture. By your logic, the Arians are justified to not follow Nicaea because to them it contradicts Scripture. If there is no other infallible authority to settle the issue then the Arians are justified in following their interpretation of the Bible.
they were the thing that helped the followers see that, the Bible and the Canon is of God. The Bible didn't just appear in Paul's lap in prison.@@redeemedzoomer6053
@@redeemedzoomer6053Yes. Yes we do. That is the purpose of the councils. It is clear from real life that Perspicuity as taught by Protestants is NOT true.
Nestorians: 2 vials: one water and one oil, packaged together. Miaphysites: water and oil in the same container, but constantly shaken up to keep it homogeneous. Chalcedonians: water and oil in the same container. Separate, but one.
@@Urfavigbo Well it is a single nature that is both human and divine at the same time. Unless Christ is like a wave until you observe it and it becomes a particle. (or is it the other way around?)
16:28 Correction: Calvin, so far as I can tell, never directly affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary. He refutes what he considers bad arguments against it (specifically Helvidius' argument that the "till" implicitly suggested future conjugal relations between Mary and Joseph in Matthew 1:25), but he also refutes what he considers bad arguments in favor of it. Specifically, in referencing the Latin church's treatment of Luke 1:34, he writes: *"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."* My suspicion is that Calvin did disaffirm perpetual virginity at least privately, but understood that the weight of the Church Fathers and contemporary society disagreed with him on that point, and he didn't consider it a critical element of faith regardless. If he foresaw the level of devotion Mary would accrue in the current day, I think he would have opposed the doctrine more directly.
Ecumenical Council: "This scripture means (insert meaning)" Protestant: "actually its wrong and isnt authoritative because it contradicts scripture." Ecumenical council: "oh really? What makes you think that?" Protestant: "Because i believe it contradicts scripture."
@@redeemedzoomer6053 But you are a Calvinist no? someone has convinced you through argumentation that the bible leads to a Calvinist perspective on salvation, their interpretation on scripture is ultimately how you view scripture and its meaning. Just as the various councils decided church doctrine and helps one to interpret scriptures meanings, this is because people can come away with all sorts of different meanings from scripture. Its how we end up with various heresies and denominations, look back at the early church they were not protestant and they were not Calvinists. Sola scriptura was not a belief the church had for a very long time, if this belief was true why was it not there from the beginning? it seems authority would play a key role in church development.
Can you talk more about the other councils, like ones that are specific to Catholic/EO, ones that have been over-turned, etc.? This was really interesting and I'd love to hear more, even if it's about ones that Protestants don't affirm!
You should google the ecumenical councils and there is a wikipedia that summarizes each one (I think there are 21 affirmed by Catholic Church) and also Catholic Answers has an article that summarizes them.
RZ, do you accept any of the cannons of Nicaea? While you accept the Creed, it doesn’t seem that you can affirm any of the rulings about bishops and proto-Metropolitans.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 but my point is that you highly praise Nicaea for being “the most authoritative ecumenical council” but you don’t adhere to the majority of it. Seems like there’s tension there to me. Is it authoritative or not? (Also, merry Christmas!)
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Seek and ye shall find. Just know that these kinds of digs only lose you support with Christians of all affiliations. Extend some charity rather than seemingly constantly bashing Orthodox (insta as well)
@@redeemedzoomer6053 1 you said hieria had more in attendance (as a way of representing hieria as the consensus which was later opposed by second Nicaea) 2 you didn't make that argument in this video but you said That we can't believe the councils to be infallible because they contradict "And some of these councils were later rejected even though they represented the consensus of the church at some point" I simply pointed out one of the many reasons why hieria was deemed illigitamte 3 I am OO so I really have no dog in this fight I was just annoyed with the way you represented hieria (as well as ignoring the historical context)
@@redeemedzoomer6053 More to the point, the Council of Constantinople 815 was presided over by Patriarch Theodotos I, reaffirming Hieria and overthrowing Nicea II. There were political shenanigans by both the iconodules and iconoclasts during this period (case in point, Empress Irene, who convened Nicea II, had her son blinded and possibly murdered). Protestants are fully justified in not rooting epistemological authority in church councils.
@@MasteringJohn this is exactly what I meant by ignoring the historical context You ignored the fact that the previous patriarch was deposed by the emperor in favor of an iconoclast one
@@kiroshakir7935 I didn't ignore context, I explicitly stated there were political shenanigans on both sides. *You* ignored the actions of Empress Irene who *convened* Nicea II.
Love your videos man. The necessity of a mechanism to decide between contradictory interpretation of scripture is what led me to be Catholic. Practically speaking its impossible to fulfill Ephesians 4:4-6 with out a teaching authority to solve disputes over biblical interpretation. It's the inability of the East to hold further councils that makes them so unappealing in my eyes.
There was a Great Orthodox Synod in 2016 in Crete, Greece. The difference is, Orthodox do not change the tradition every now and then like Catholics. It doesn't bend according to the "new" trends.
Thanks for the video. I'm looking into the Eastern Orthodox church, coming from baptist church. I'm going to have to do some research on the 7th eccumenical council. Merry Christmas!
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I've thought about Lutheranism, and I think I've come to the conclusion that works is not a requirement for salvation (i.e. the thief on the cross), but in normal circumstances works need to happen. Works without faith won't save you, and faith without works is dead. You need to do works in faith, from my understanding. I'm not 100% educated on Orthodoxy quite yet, so I can't respond to the denying of penal substitution. But I will heed your advise and look into Luthernism more, taking a looking at my channel you will see that I love Bach and baroque music in general. God Bless.
@@jukedbyjerome I've actually done all that. I love the Liturgy, and the Priest approached me, which has never happened at any church I've been too. He made himself available to me. But I do my own research and weigh everyones opinions and try to rectify it with my thoughts, and what I read the bible to say on the issue. (Yes, I have the orthodox bible, as well as a catholic and protestant, I cross check everything.)
I think that, with ecumenical councils, there's so much going on besides pure theology...it seems that oftentimes theological differences line up with cultural or economic differences as well. A few examples off the top of my head (I could be incorrect): The first divisions in the book of acts being Jewish vs Greek Christians Arians being upper-class and barbarian tribes while the orthodox being more common folk. Monophysites being non-Greco Romans Within the English reformation the more pro-Catholics being more upper class and the pro-protestants being lower class (I might have this reversed) Donatists being native north Africans and Catholics being more affiliated with Rome Latin/Roman west vs Greek/Greek culture east Protestant countries being northern European and using Germanic languages and Catholic countries being southern European and using Romance languages. In the US, liberal Christians being in the big cities and the coasts and conservative Christians being in smaller towns and the center/south of the country. I think that we also see this happening in divisions within other religions. The original division between Sunni and Shia correlated with class (and who had joined up first), and today it largely fits with Arab vs Persian cultures. In Buddhism you have Mahayana in east Asia and Theravada in southeast Asia. My pet theory is that the theology part is mostly for the nerds having the debates and the common folk just side with whichever nerd comes from their culture. Also, in regards to Mary, whatever turns out to be true I will always find it weird that people put so much thought and emotions into the sex life of a lady from 2000 years ago...like that's personal!
It’s always pretty cool (for Catholics anyway) to note that Pope Saint Leo nullified canons at the Council of Chalcedon, and this decision was accepted by the bishops at the time. Papal authority go brrr
@@Rat_8868The NT (along with the OT) has the highest authorithy precisely because It was written by the Apostles and Jesus promissed that the Holy Spirit would guide them and command them to teach the Church. The NT contains their teachings and because of that their authorithy lol. If your Church calls itself to be Apostolic but don't submmit to their teachings (which are writren in the NT) so it is either not apostolic or it calls to some obscure "oral tradition" which was what the Catholic and EO have done.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 However, there is a reason why Catholic and EO countries have a much higher percentage of the population still actively believing. And that is because the books are full of contradictions, and please don't try saying they can be explained away because they absolutely can not. By placing the focus on the books, those contradictions are being exposed and people are abandoning the religion because of it. On the other hand, since Catholics and EO say that the church is the highest authority, the people focus on the church and its teachings and on Jesus, and if someone points out a contradiction in the book the church can (and does) easily wave that away saying that error-prone humans wrote it, or that the people aren't englightened enough to understand the underlying meaning, or some other explanation that people easily accept in that case and stay with Christianity. If you allow a 1000 people to interpret the books in their own way, you will get 1000 denominations.
@@pedroguimaraes6094so the NT and OT has authority because the people who wrote them were inspired by god. that is the same with the EO Church. It is inspired by god so therefore it has authority.
How does it work in Protestantism to interpret the scriptures without the Sacred Tradition handed down by the apostles and their disciples? There does not seem to be an ultimate authority in Protestantism that guides and binds all believers into one truth. One can leave a church and start a new one and can be just as much a Protestant as the other guy.
Protestantism is not one big Church, it is an umbrella term for different churches. If I do not follow the stipulations and Confessions of my Church, I will be excommunicated, as will you in yours and if you, upon being excommunicated, for example, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, you will be able to become a member of the Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Assyrian Church etc. just as I can become a member of Lutheran, Anglican etc. In my Presbyterian Church our ministers must read the entire Confession of Faith before entering seminary and must take an oath to follow it in its entirety to become pastors. Isn't that authoritative?
@@pedroguimaraes6094The Catholic,Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian church of the East are not part of Eastern Orthodox Church.There are 4 different Church.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 No, you said in the Eastern Orthodox Church you can go to Cathlic,Oriental orthodox but it is wrong.They are not in the Orthodox Church nor have communion with us.
You do at least put your finger on the subject of "interpretation": @redeemedzoomer did mention the names of few people that he considers to be either reliable or unreliable interpreters of the scriptures, and these replace the Basil's and the Cyprian's of orthodoxy. Scripture is self-consistent, but it does not interpret itself, that is the job of the Holy Ghost. To take to extremes: - the extreme of orthodoxy is to fossilize everything so that the Holy Ghost is quenched because he simply can't get anybody to move beyond sacred tradition; - the extreme of protestantism or evangelicalism is that the Holy Ghost is quenched because everybody is off doing their own interpretation and won't listen to him. There are parallels to the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the time of Christ.
to that comment at the end, I'm sure you'll give a more clear explanation but is sounds like you're saying you like sola scriptura because under it you can pick and choose what doctrines you hold to based on your own interpretation of the scripture
Thankyou for visiting Nikopol. Next time, take a look at our railroad, we have plenty of settlements along it, and go to to the old town to find the first church
You should continued this romp through the councils. I think it would be interesting to see the reformed view of councils of the Catholic Church after 2nd Nicea.
My brain breaks when I hear that Bible > church when the church came first and was written by those who built the church on behalf of Jesus who created it!!!! The church came FIRST and is what the Bible is rooted in not the other way around!!!
The one true holy Catholic and apostolic church. Which church *today* can claim to be the original church is the question. But let’s not pretend that there were “churches” during the apostolic era.
Hey RZ, how do we know what books of the bible are canon since many denominations have different canon? If you can do that sometime I'd love to see it.
I highly recommend a book by John Meade and Peter Gurry. If you don't want to read, there are some CZcams videos of them giving a summary. I like them because they represent different sides fairly. For the NT, all "orthodox" churches use the same 27 books. The discrepancy is the Old Testament and this is an ancient battle going back to the 2nd and 1st Century BC. Even Jews were fighting over what we refer to as "Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical/the Second Temple Literature". Christians inherited this ancient debate. Most Jews nowadays use the same Masoretic Text as Protestants do, but there are small Jewish sects that are more like the Eastern Orthodox. Remember that early Christians debated over this. Remember that the inerrant and infallible word of God is a faith statement. We have great pieces of evidence to prove that these documents are "miraculously" preserved well.
Yeah there are 3 or 4 different ones. We all have the same new testament but the old differs depending on protestant, catholic, and then some orthodox ones use a third I think.
Disclaimer: I am not formally educated in theology in any way, merely brought up in the Presbyterian church as the son of an elder. I find the perpetual virginity of Mary to be intuitively unlikely. From Matthew 1:24-25 [1] we are told Joseph and Mary did not consummate their marriage until Mary had given birth to Jesus. Now I don't know what the original Greek would actually mean with what is translated as "until", but the very fact that this is mentioned, and the fact that consummation is not just normal but an integral part of marriage, should mean we can expect that they did in fact consummate unless explicitly told otherwise. Then in Matthew 12:46-50 [2], Jesus' mother and brothers came to see Him during His ministry. Some say these were sons of Joseph but not of Mary (sons from a previous marriage of Joseph), but I don't think that really makes much sense either - if that were the case, where is that wife of Joseph anywhere else in the Bible, and why are her sons hanging out with Mary? Another suggestion is that it was Mary of Clopas and her sons, but that would be his aunt and cousins, not mother and brothers. If that were so, would they not be referred to merely as relatives? And then there is James, called the brother of Jesus. It has also been said that this James was the son of Mary of Clopas, which would make him a cousin - in which case the term "brother" is deceptive - or that he was a son of Joseph but not of Mary - a son from a previous marriage. Now that's less unreasonable, but I think it unlikely that Joseph had a previous marriage, and here's why - when Jesus was presented to the temple, he was not redeemed as the firstborn. Now, whether Joseph had a previous marriage or not, this is fine, because the law was that the firstborn of every womb must be redeemed (Exodus 13:1-2 [3]). But the reason He was not redeemed and was instead presented for lifelong service to God, was because Joseph and Mary could not afford to redeem Him. They also could not afford the standard offering of cleansing as prescribed in Leviticus 12 [4], instead bringing two doves or pigeons (Luke 2:22-24 [5]) - the provision in the law for the poor. Since Joseph and Mary were so poor, is it reasonable for Joseph to have another wife and other children that he needed to feed while he was betrothed to Mary? While it's not completely out of the question, I would call it financially irresponsible, to such a degree that I would argue it goes against the verse that says "Joseph was a righteous man" (Matthew 1:19 [6]). Joseph was willing to risk his own reputation to save Mary's life. We don't know anything about their betrothal or when it they intended to be married (bearing in mind that betrothal was as legally binding as marriage itself, but not completed or consummated), whether perhaps the marriage was brought forward as a result of Mary's pregnancy, but I think it possible that Joseph was working to build more financially stability to bring his wife home to, but God's timing trumped his. So in conclusion: I cannot prove against the perpetual virginity of Mary (not that I expect I could, hundreds of years after the council in question), but I find it quite unlikely. [1] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201%3A24-25&version=NIV [2] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A46-50&version=NIV [3] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+13%3A1-2&version=NIV [4] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2012&version=NIV [5] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A22-24&version=NIV [6] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A19&version=NIV - current NIV reads "Joseph was faithful to the law and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace", but previous NIV publishings and current NIV footnote reads "was a righteous man and did not want...". CSB, ESV, NASB and NKJV read similarly, using the conjunction "and" rather than "but" or "yet".
5:44 I'm a Catholic and my brother is baptist. Even he likes to joke about "Santa Claus punching a heretic in the face" from time to time. And then, I jokingly call him s heretic. Much fun is have by all involved.
Ey RZ, I would like to suggest to you a video idea. Something like matching percentages in dating apps but actually christian denominations, how does it seem?
Nestorius also omitted "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father" when citing the Nicene Creed to Cyril. He *did not believe Jesus was homoousios* (of same substance) but rather that he was homoiousios (of like substance) which makes Jesus different from God. This is not compatible with Nicene Christianity.
Toledo was a local Council, the pronouncements of the Filioque in the Creed were also rejected for centuries by the same Papacy that later adopted the Filioque after Charlemagne and the Carolingian emperors naming Popes. That's about 4 centuries of the Popes unanimously rejecting the Filioque in the Creed.
Fine, I get that. But from where do you get icon veneration more exactly? I agree that we can make art, but I see no basis in Scripture and the early church for icon veneration.
With the 5th Council, Doesn’t the Bible say that Jesus Had Brothers. James starts his epistle by affirming he is the brother of Jesus and the Gospels tell the story of Mary and Jesus’s brothers coming to visit him, Mark 3:31-35. Isn’t that proof Mary did not stay a virgin and conceived other children?
@@JonathanD7:"Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does." The English "brother" doesn't mean the same thing as The Greek one.
you never heard someone refer to someone else as their brother even though they aren't of the same womb? Also there is no word for "cousin" in Hebrew and used the word "Adelphi" to refer to what we know as cousins@@JonathanD7
@@Kauahdhdhd I’m fully aware how my comment might make some people feel. I would say that the body of Christ, composed of imperfect fallible sinful humans, can agree on something and be wrong about it. I would also say that we have several examples from the New Testament of churches started by and watched over by the apostles, that fall into straight heresy. So the idea that believers, even believers close to the time of the very apostles of Christ, couldn’t commit to or believe false things, is insane to me. They can and they did and they do. Some worse than others, ie Roman Catholics compared to my Presbyterians brothers and sisters.
@@Kauahdhdhd Ok. I’m open for a conversation on this. What do you mean by whole church and what verses would you say support your position? Also, what denomination are you? I’m a Reformed Baptist leaning towards Independent Baptist with a flavor of Landmarkism.
24:28 - Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me- or at least believe on account of the works themselves. (John 14:9-11)
This just shows that none of us has truly understood God's nature. Nor can we. The more precise we try to get in our descriptions, the less they make sense, and the less scripture makes sense when viewed through the lens of a theological perspective. If you need to study Theology and church history to be able to grasp the basics of the Christian faith, the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" seems to have undergone some serious changes since the Gospel was preached to the poor and illiterate in the 1st century.
@@GodJesusChristlovesyou_knows_u I agree that God doesn't change, because that's something the Bible says about Him. I'm just skeptical of theological systems that claim to explain the nature and persons of God and exactly how they relate to one another. This might get me called a heretic, but if I started out on the premise that the doctrine of the trinity (as it is commonly understood nowadays) were irrefutably true, the scripture passage you quoted wouldn't make any sense. It doesn't fit the system. Jesus says the Father is in Him, and He is in the Father. The way I was taught the Trinity, is that while we worship one God in three persons, those persons are completely distinct from each other. I don't claim to fully understand it, but if a passage in the Bible doesn't match up with what Theologians say, I'd rather be skeptical of the Theologians than the word of God.
@@erikabutterfly @erikabutterfly I had exactly the same questions. I had heard about the 'concept' (if I am allowed to use that word) of the Holy Trinity only from others, and there were some seeds of doubt sowed in me. My only explanation back then was, "All these men who were truly born-again through God's Holy Spirit were guided by God's Holy Spirit". But, when God showed me random passages I read during my Bible reading....I can see just the same 'concept' of Holy Trinity 'being applied'....be it from Psalms & the Old Testament, or the New Testament....be it "the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"...and so on....or also see Isaiah 9, where Jesus is described as both Everlasting Father and prince of peace. Then see Philippians 1:19 and Romans 8:9, where the Spirit of God is also described as the Spirit of Jesus. Also, John 1 were it is said, "The Word was God. He was with God in the beginning" (clearly mentioning Jesus as God). Also, Jesus saying "I and my Father are one" are really nice examples of the same. Also, the Holy Spirit is God Himself because the Lord Jesus Christ very clearly mentioned Him as an advocate. Also, we can see in other parts that the "Spirit of God came upon him" or "the Spirit of God was hovering" and so on. The Spirit of God has to be God Himself, as God cannot have a mortal or non-immortal soul whom he sends to dwell in us and be with us forever. Also, note that the Spirit of God must be Omnipotent and Omniscient as God Himself. Last but not least, ask and pray to God Himself to show you through verses and passages that show that He is Triune, and numerous passages that show that Jesus(God the Son), God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are one. ...."Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened" (Matthew 7:7-8), "Ask (in my name) and you will receive, and your joy will be complete" (John 16:24)
to the perpetual virginity dogma, discussed somewhere around minute 16:35 , isn't there very clear, even biblical evidence that jesus had siblings? I mean how could that be if mary stayed a virgin?
The Theotokos remained a virgin. Joseph had another wife and she became the mother of Jesus’s siblings. That’s the traditional teaching, I am pretty sure
my Catholic teacher told me the greek word for Jesus’s brothers is kind of like “family members”. you can call your brother your “family member” but they had other words for “brother” that they didn’t use
No verses said Mary was their mother."Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does."from orthodoxwiki.
Doesnt the Bible specify that Joseph doesnt lay with Mary for as long as shes pregnant with Christ, which would imply that he hit it afterwards, even if the bible doesnt necessarily speak on that in particular?
Yes, Matthew 1:25. It would make sense too. Sex within marriage wasn't considered unclean back then - on the contrary. It was the reason to get married. The catholic church eventually decided that sex, while necessary for procreation, was actually sinful and should be avoided as much as possible. There's no biblical basis for this. Then they also decided that Jesus could not be born to a sinful woman, so they invented this elaborate backstory on Mary's parents having conceived her without any lust ("immaculate conception", celebrated Dec. 8), and that Mary was perfectly sinless her entire life. No scriptural basis for this either. Based on those false premises (sex is sinful and Mary was sinless) they decided that Mary must have been a virgin forever. TLDR: Just stick with scripture. It's much simpler and more reasonable. "Until" means "until".
As a Protestant I would be very interested in a video on the arguments made from the bible in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity, and why early Protestants adhered to this doctrine.
Re: the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and why I disagree with it. Mary was married to Joseph for at least 12 years. They were well enough in that time to travel to Egypt and back. They also traveled to Jerusalem with Jesus. St Paul said that it was wrong for married couples to abstain from sexual intimacy unless there was illness or for an agreed. Therefore Mary and Joseph would have been disobeying God if they had abstained for their entire married.
@@Aksm91ManNavarNo. None of the Bible authors are God, including the Gospel writers. But all of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit and St Paul’s instruction has authority and weight.
The Virgin Mary was a Temple virgin committed to a life of chastity. After reaching the ago of menstruation, the widower Joseph was chosen as a protector since she could no longer live in the Temple. Having sexual relations would be a violation of an oath made to God
Catholics do not think ecumenical councils are infallible. Such an idea has actually long been a source of debate within the church and caused many popes to refrain from calling them
Its very clear the Arians worshipped Jesus as God, they were trinitarians. They were just elaborate subordinatationists. Please do a better job teaching what heresies actually were. Its important to not misrepresent what they claimed, especially on matters regarding the Trinity. If you don't, people might adopt heretical beliefs and not realize it.
You know I had never actually understood at all what “Icon Veneration” was until now. Can anyone explain how bowing to an “Icon” is not the most obvious straight up violation of the second commandment possible?
About Mary being perpetually virgin, wouldn't that be ruled out by the fact that the bible shows pretty clearly that Jesus had brothers and sisters? If was a reason that people from his home town did not believe he was anything special. Matthew 13:54-48 And I'm pretty sure there are a lot more verses that show he had brothers and sisters in the flesh, unless they were all adopted, which I know of no proof of that being the case.
The word “αδελφοί” is rather nebulous. Paul often starts his letters with it and does not mean his literal brothers. The Virgin Mary was also a Temple virgin, committed to a life a chastity. At the age of menstruation, the widower Joseph is chosen as a protector. The Virgin has any sexual relations would mean that Joseph failed in his role
Matthew 1:24-25 NKJV "[24] Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, [25] and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. " This is the main reason I doubt Mary remained a virgin. Notice the "until" and the "firstborn". Both are words that would be unnecessary to include in the text, if it were to mean that Joseph never had relations with Mary and that Jesus was therefore her only son. You can legitimately question the meaning of the word "brothers" in biblical times, but the word "until" has always been as clear as it is today.
Sure. Listen to Jordan Cooper and Gavin Ortlund to learn why you should stay Protestant, and just convert to a form of Protestantism like Lutheranism or Anglicanism that still has deep catholic tradition while still putting Scripture first
Council 1 (Nicea): Jesus Christ is God. Council 2 (Constantinople): Jesus Christ is human and the Holy Spirit is God. COuncil 3 (Ephesus): Jesus Christ is one person. Council 4 (Chalcedon): Jesus Christ has two natures.
Unaltered Confession of Augsburg (1530), seventh and last ecumenical council of Catholic Christianity. Internal validity of a council means that any dogmatic definition must not contradict the work of previous ecumenical councils. Thus, once the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed had been established, all subsequent councils were concerned to ratify the previous ecumenical councils, even Ephesus, for Nicene. Yet, according to the Synod of Nicaea II, the person of Christ is only venerated, according to his image, because only the divinity can be worshipped. Thus, the humanity of Jesus Christ is considered separate from his divinity. As a result, the person of Christ is not the eternal Son of God as divine center of divine attribution of humanity and divinity, the object of worship, since he cannot be worshipped through his image, but a simple conjunction of the two natures, human and divine. This explains why he can only be venerated through his icon. Nicaea II is, therefore, no more than a Nestorian synod. As a result, Nicaea II is null and void on the grounds of Nestorianism, an accusation that can be repeated for Const.IV. Thereafter, no further ecumenical councils were recognized by the Pentarchy (1054). On the other hand, the doctrine of the unaltered Augsburg Confession and Luther's Small Catechism (C.A. III & XX) have an internal ecumenical vocation, in that they are part of the coherent tradition of the Church, synthesized by the Creed, which this doctrine and tradition specify: Mt.13/52 and Is.7/9 (LXX). What's more, like the conciliar tradition, they lay claim to this coherent tradition (325-681 A.D). The fact that the Augustana invariata was officially received by all the reformers (Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer) between 1536 and 1538, despite subsequent defections, whether latent or public, gives this doctrinal clarification of the Creed the status of the 7th Ecumenical Council. The defections undid the text of the Wittenberg Concord of 1536, but not the fact that the Augsburg Confession was given the honor it deserved (external validity). This is why, following in the footsteps of the first six ecumenical councils, we accept the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism as irrefutable decisions of the 7th ecumenical council of the one Catholic Church of all Christendom.
The problem with the Council of Nicaea and, to a lesser extent, Constantinople is that the idea of the Trinity doesn't make sense. How can God be three things at the same time? It defies the Pauli exclusion principle which God is not immune from. Its like me saying I'm Logman but I'm also Jimmy. Jesus can't be God because there is only one God. God the Father created his biological Son, impregnated Mary via the Holy Spirit, which in turn is the mechanism of how God interacts with the world. In short: 1. There is only one God 2. God is subject to the laws of physics and thereby which nullifies the idea of the Trinity 3. Jesus is both divine and human via being created by God who then impregnated Mary via the Holy Spirit giving him that 50/50 nature making him biologically God's Son 4. God uses the Holy Spirit to interact with the world similar to we use wifi and Bluetooth signals to interact with remote devices and the internet without actually "being there" to physically control a device (think wired vs wireless headphones)
I have a question. I dont fully agree with any church, and our church is not a real one they are mostly hipocrates and me and my friends believe tho, so can we be considered a church, the 4 of us?
I've often heard the claim the Calvin belived in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but the only evidence I've seen people give for that is the fact Calvin uses tge phrase "the virgin Mary" when he writes about her, but I would argue that's very weak evidence. Just calling her the virgin Mary doesn't mean he believed she was one perpetually. Unless there is more evidence out there that i haven't seen? The Idea of Mary's perpetual virginity introduces so many problems, you have to accept that jesus wasn't born naturally, but like the Catholics believe jesus just appeared outside the womb after a flash of light. Otherwise Mary would have broke her virginity through giving birth naturally.
Yes, but divinity is still properly predicated of the person of Christ, and as such the title of Theotokos is used to highlight that Mary is the mother of the person of Christ who possesses two natures (divine and human)
I know and can perceive the truth of Christianity within my heart and spirit but my mind cannot make heads or tails of how it would be possible This duality gives me great stress in my daily life unfortunately
didn't Jesus have siblings? also, Joseph didn't consummate his marriage with Mary till after Jesus was born. So i don't think Mary stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. however her dedication to God and willingness to go through the circumstances God gave her should remain admirable
Our Scriptures say nothing to indicate Jesus had siblings. What it says is that He had brothers, which at this time can be any family member of similar age. At the cross we see Jesus gave His mother to John the apostle indicating Mary had no other son to take care of her.
Tradition tells that the Virgin Mary was a Temple Virgin committed to chastity similar to a nun. She spent her youth in the Temple but upon the age of menstruation, she had to leave the Temple. Lots were cast and the elder widower Joseph was selected as her guardian. Joseph is humiliated at first because he has failed his mission as a protector of the Virgin’s virginity. The seedless conception is scandalous because of the Virgin’s chastity. But we know she had not known man
In regards to the 5th council and the perpetual virginity of Mary, does that mean that she never stopped being a virgin due to the birth, or that her and Joseph never had sex after Jesus birth?
Catholics would believe both. However the Bible doesn't confirm either. And if that were an important, central Christian belief, it would be reasonable to expect at least one out of the four gospels to mention it.
Isn't the Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 the first Council? I mean it was a group of people deciding on beliefs so technically it meets the requirements, right?
I think that's considered a local council.
@@Brandonf98 But it acknowledged a doctrinal change in ALL Christianity, People from other places went to Jerusalem to decide if circumcision was required in Christianity.
@@Potato12377-q Yeah that's ture so I don't know why it's not considered an Ecumenical Council.
@@Brandonf98 That's not true. Remember that Paul and Barnabas attended representing the Church in Antioch.
@@Brandonf98 probably because it’s also a part of Scripture?
Remember if you're good boy or girl santa will punch a heretic for you this year
I just realized these aren’t voiceovers and you’re playing as you talk.
You’re really good at multitasking lol
Inaccurate view of councils. Councils aren’t right or wrong dependent on whether they contradict Scripture or not. The whole reason councils are convened is because there is a disagreement on what the Scripture says! The Arians had their verses to support their heresies too but Nicaea overruled their interpretation of Scripture. By your logic, the Arians are justified to not follow Nicaea because to them it contradicts Scripture. If there is no other infallible authority to settle the issue then the Arians are justified in following their interpretation of the Bible.
So you think Councils are better at communication than the Word of God?
they were the thing that helped the followers see that, the Bible and the Canon is of God. The Bible didn't just appear in Paul's lap in prison.@@redeemedzoomer6053
@@redeemedzoomer6053where does he say this 🤦♂️
@@redeemedzoomer6053you literally have no reading comprehension skills. you are hearing what you want to hear.
@@redeemedzoomer6053Yes. Yes we do. That is the purpose of the councils. It is clear from real life that Perspicuity as taught by Protestants is NOT true.
“God of God
Light of Light
Lo, He abhors not the virgin’s womb
Very God, begotten not created.”
Merry Christmas!
Nestorians: 2 vials: one water and one oil, packaged together.
Miaphysites: water and oil in the same container, but constantly shaken up to keep it homogeneous.
Chalcedonians: water and oil in the same container. Separate, but one.
I believe the miaphysites would disagree with you. They don't believe in a mixture of Jesus's natures.
@@Urfavigbo Well it is a single nature that is both human and divine at the same time.
Unless Christ is like a wave until you observe it and it becomes a particle. (or is it the other way around?)
Seems good didactics to me
@@pawlaovicto7824 do you mean dialectics?
St. Cyril used the example of the soul and body or fire and iron to describe the mia physis formula
5:45 you were one block away from digging yourself down to death bud.
It's maddening to me how Zoomer always digs straight down like that. He nearly lost all those diamond tools.
@@gghhghhghghgghhghhghgh2844 hard to trust the theological opinions of someone who is so wrong about a video game
@@gumbyshrimp2606 fr, digging straight down should be a heresy.
16:28
Correction: Calvin, so far as I can tell, never directly affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary. He refutes what he considers bad arguments against it (specifically Helvidius' argument that the "till" implicitly suggested future conjugal relations between Mary and Joseph in Matthew 1:25), but he also refutes what he considers bad arguments in favor of it. Specifically, in referencing the Latin church's treatment of Luke 1:34, he writes:
*"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."*
My suspicion is that Calvin did disaffirm perpetual virginity at least privately, but understood that the weight of the Church Fathers and contemporary society disagreed with him on that point, and he didn't consider it a critical element of faith regardless. If he foresaw the level of devotion Mary would accrue in the current day, I think he would have opposed the doctrine more directly.
Im from Belarus and Im SO GLAD that i kearn english so I can watch your videos.
Good job,вітаю з України
Ecumenical Council: "This scripture means (insert meaning)"
Protestant: "actually its wrong and isnt authoritative because it contradicts scripture."
Ecumenical council: "oh really? What makes you think that?"
Protestant: "Because i believe it contradicts scripture."
So you think Councils are better at communicating than God?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 But you are a Calvinist no? someone has convinced you through argumentation that the bible leads to a Calvinist perspective on salvation, their interpretation on scripture is ultimately how you view scripture and its meaning. Just as the various councils decided church doctrine and helps one to interpret scriptures meanings, this is because people can come away with all sorts of different meanings from scripture. Its how we end up with various heresies and denominations, look back at the early church they were not protestant and they were not Calvinists. Sola scriptura was not a belief the church had for a very long time, if this belief was true why was it not there from the beginning? it seems authority would play a key role in church development.
@@Kauahdhdhd You mean like your apostate Pope driving Rome into the abyss of sexual pervesion and wokeness
I mean... some claimed contradictions with scripture take a *lot* of mental gymnastics to harmonize...
@@redeemedzoomer6053who ever said that ☠️
Can you talk more about the other councils, like ones that are specific to Catholic/EO, ones that have been over-turned, etc.? This was really interesting and I'd love to hear more, even if it's about ones that Protestants don't affirm!
You should google the ecumenical councils and there is a wikipedia that summarizes each one (I think there are 21 affirmed by Catholic Church) and also Catholic Answers has an article that summarizes them.
Also some orthodox christians recognise more than 7 ecumenical councils. Like synod of constantinople in 879-80. Synod of Jerusalem 1651 etc.
RZ, do you accept any of the cannons of Nicaea? While you accept the Creed, it doesn’t seem that you can affirm any of the rulings about bishops and proto-Metropolitans.
Just because the church was a certain way at Nicaea doesn’t mean we need to make our churches be that way
@@redeemedzoomer6053 but my point is that you highly praise Nicaea for being “the most authoritative ecumenical council” but you don’t adhere to the majority of it. Seems like there’s tension there to me. Is it authoritative or not? (Also, merry Christmas!)
@garrettklawuhn9874 he basically thinks that the church has the holy spirit as long as it affirms what protestants believe.
Gotta love the constant digs at Orthodoxy. Oh well, one day he shall find it.
welp, if they keep saying Protestantism is heretical and everyone should leave Protestantism, they shouldn't be surprised when we respond
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Seek and ye shall find. Just know that these kinds of digs only lose you support with Christians of all affiliations. Extend some charity rather than seemingly constantly bashing Orthodox (insta as well)
he's probably still salty about Jay Dyer
@@redeemedzoomer6053 It's harsh language. But the intent of it is not to condemn you it's an attempt to encourage you to reconsider your position.
@@redeemedzoomer6053thats not responding. its being salty, bitter, and petty.
Hieria had about 20 more bishops
But none of the major patriarchates
Like Rome Antioch and Jerusalem
As a Protestant: who cares?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 1 you said hieria had more in attendance (as a way of representing hieria as the consensus which was later opposed by second Nicaea)
2 you didn't make that argument in this video but you said
That we can't believe the councils to be infallible because they contradict
"And some of these councils were later rejected even though they represented the consensus of the church at some point"
I simply pointed out one of the many reasons why hieria was deemed illigitamte
3 I am OO so I really have no dog in this fight
I was just annoyed with the way you represented hieria (as well as ignoring the historical context)
@@redeemedzoomer6053 More to the point, the Council of Constantinople 815 was presided over by Patriarch Theodotos I, reaffirming Hieria and overthrowing Nicea II. There were political shenanigans by both the iconodules and iconoclasts during this period (case in point, Empress Irene, who convened Nicea II, had her son blinded and possibly murdered). Protestants are fully justified in not rooting epistemological authority in church councils.
@@MasteringJohn this is exactly what I meant by ignoring the historical context
You ignored the fact that the previous patriarch was deposed by the emperor in favor of an iconoclast one
@@kiroshakir7935 I didn't ignore context, I explicitly stated there were political shenanigans on both sides. *You* ignored the actions of Empress Irene who *convened* Nicea II.
Iconoclasm was done in direct imitation of the Muslims because the Byzantine Empire lost some battles to them.
That’s as silly as saying icons are an imitation of paganism
@@redeemedzoomer6053 it isn't, carlos is correct
@@ConfessingExalter is a crucifix blasphemy then? lol
But thats literally why it happened lol @redeemedzoomer6053
@@ConfessingExalter Jesus is an icon of the Father. It is also a custom to draw the Jesus as the ancient of days if you want to show the Father.
Merry Christmas my calvinist brother in Christ, child was given to us
Love your videos man. The necessity of a mechanism to decide between contradictory interpretation of scripture is what led me to be Catholic. Practically speaking its impossible to fulfill Ephesians 4:4-6 with out a teaching authority to solve disputes over biblical interpretation. It's the inability of the East to hold further councils that makes them so unappealing in my eyes.
Why Catholic and not Orthodox?
" It's the inability of the East to hold further councils that makes them so unappealing in my eyes."@@redeemedzoomer6053
Why not Puritan?
lack of continuity@@blakekendall6156
There was a Great Orthodox Synod in 2016 in Crete, Greece. The difference is, Orthodox do not change the tradition every now and then like Catholics. It doesn't bend according to the "new" trends.
Thanks again zoomer, the purposes behind why these counsels were formed are very important contexts.
The Catholic ones. Thank you for participating.
Thanks for the video. I'm looking into the Eastern Orthodox church, coming from baptist church. I'm going to have to do some research on the 7th eccumenical council. Merry Christmas!
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I've thought about Lutheranism, and I think I've come to the conclusion that works is not a requirement for salvation (i.e. the thief on the cross), but in normal circumstances works need to happen. Works without faith won't save you, and faith without works is dead. You need to do works in faith, from my understanding. I'm not 100% educated on Orthodoxy quite yet, so I can't respond to the denying of penal substitution. But I will heed your advise and look into Luthernism more, taking a looking at my channel you will see that I love Bach and baroque music in general. God Bless.
@@jukedbyjerome I've actually done all that. I love the Liturgy, and the Priest approached me, which has never happened at any church I've been too. He made himself available to me. But I do my own research and weigh everyones opinions and try to rectify it with my thoughts, and what I read the bible to say on the issue. (Yes, I have the orthodox bible, as well as a catholic and protestant, I cross check everything.)
Good luck on your journey! I converted from evangelicalism and am not a Catechumen!
@@redeemedzoomer6053 why Lutheranism over orthodoxy
@@zeec2093he explained his reasoning in the comment
I think that, with ecumenical councils, there's so much going on besides pure theology...it seems that oftentimes theological differences line up with cultural or economic differences as well. A few examples off the top of my head (I could be incorrect):
The first divisions in the book of acts being Jewish vs Greek Christians
Arians being upper-class and barbarian tribes while the orthodox being more common folk.
Monophysites being non-Greco Romans
Within the English reformation the more pro-Catholics being more upper class and the pro-protestants being lower class (I might have this reversed)
Donatists being native north Africans and Catholics being more affiliated with Rome
Latin/Roman west vs Greek/Greek culture east
Protestant countries being northern European and using Germanic languages and Catholic countries being southern European and using Romance languages.
In the US, liberal Christians being in the big cities and the coasts and conservative Christians being in smaller towns and the center/south of the country.
I think that we also see this happening in divisions within other religions. The original division between Sunni and Shia correlated with class (and who had joined up first), and today it largely fits with Arab vs Persian cultures. In Buddhism you have Mahayana in east Asia and Theravada in southeast Asia. My pet theory is that the theology part is mostly for the nerds having the debates and the common folk just side with whichever nerd comes from their culture.
Also, in regards to Mary, whatever turns out to be true I will always find it weird that people put so much thought and emotions into the sex life of a lady from 2000 years ago...like that's personal!
I like how on Christmas eve you bring up st. Nick haha
All Ecumenical Councils have authority because they are all from the one holy Catholic and apostolic church ☦️
That's the Orthodox cross 😂
@@Rolando_Cueva it is actually
@@Rolando_Cueva the orthodox church is the true holy catholic and apostolic church.
nope, you don't have the See of Peter
@@franknwogu4911 what do you mean? antioch is still orthodox.
Bro mining straight down ☠
What is your opinion about the shroud of turin?
I love this channel, I watch it everyday but this video explains why I think Protestants are LARPers
It’s always a good day when you upload👍🏻
"The entire Church can't be wrong over a long period of time" my brother in Christ, Protestantism didn't exist for an entire millenium at least 😅😂
Waldensians?
@@ead-pv5lb they came after the first millenium AD also. Where was the Holy Spirit for a thousand years?
@@wayseeker12 Jovinianism?
@@ead-pv5lb The movement that doesn't exist anymore is of the Holy Spirit?
@@ead-pv5lb What even is your point by throwing random examples that aren't equivalent to Protestantism?
It’s always pretty cool (for Catholics anyway) to note that Pope Saint Leo nullified canons at the Council of Chalcedon, and this decision was accepted by the bishops at the time. Papal authority go brrr
Why is that cool?
@@DraezethI think he’s saying this as satire
@@Draezeth It supports the Catholic view of Papal Authority.
@@georgethemonkeydrummer5598 nope
@@thehighlander6770 ah ok thanks for clarifying 🙏
so ministerial authority determines the only source of magesterial authority? yep makes perfect sense
Hey this was the question I submitted! Thanks for giving me such good answers to some of questions! Merry Christmas
17:14 i disagree, Jesus give Authority to apostoles,not their books , of corse bible have Authority, but not Highest
fr
@@Rat_8868The NT (along with the OT) has the highest authorithy precisely because It was written by the Apostles and Jesus promissed that the Holy Spirit would guide them and command them to teach the Church. The NT contains their teachings and because of that their authorithy lol. If your Church calls itself to be Apostolic but don't submmit to their teachings (which are writren in the NT) so it is either not apostolic or it calls to some obscure "oral tradition" which was what the Catholic and EO have done.
where does it say that in the bible then?@@pedroguimaraes6094
@@pedroguimaraes6094 However, there is a reason why Catholic and EO countries have a much higher percentage of the population still actively believing. And that is because the books are full of contradictions, and please don't try saying they can be explained away because they absolutely can not. By placing the focus on the books, those contradictions are being exposed and people are abandoning the religion because of it.
On the other hand, since Catholics and EO say that the church is the highest authority, the people focus on the church and its teachings and on Jesus, and if someone points out a contradiction in the book the church can (and does) easily wave that away saying that error-prone humans wrote it, or that the people aren't englightened enough to understand the underlying meaning, or some other explanation that people easily accept in that case and stay with Christianity.
If you allow a 1000 people to interpret the books in their own way, you will get 1000 denominations.
@@pedroguimaraes6094so the NT and OT has authority because the people who wrote them were inspired by god. that is the same with the EO Church. It is inspired by god so therefore it has authority.
How does it work in Protestantism to interpret the scriptures without the Sacred Tradition handed down by the apostles and their disciples? There does not seem to be an ultimate authority in Protestantism that guides and binds all believers into one truth. One can leave a church and start a new one and can be just as much a Protestant as the other guy.
Protestantism is not one big Church, it is an umbrella term for different churches. If I do not follow the stipulations and Confessions of my Church, I will be excommunicated, as will you in yours and if you, upon being excommunicated, for example, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, you will be able to become a member of the Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Assyrian Church etc. just as I can become a member of Lutheran, Anglican etc.
In my Presbyterian Church our ministers must read the entire Confession of Faith before entering seminary and must take an oath to follow it in its entirety to become pastors. Isn't that authoritative?
@@pedroguimaraes6094The Catholic,Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian church of the East are not part of Eastern Orthodox Church.There are 4 different Church.
@@leiyeuktsui8449 This is exactly what i'm saying. In the same way, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican etc. are different churches.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 No, you said in the Eastern Orthodox Church you can go to Cathlic,Oriental orthodox but it is wrong.They are not in the Orthodox Church nor have communion with us.
You do at least put your finger on the subject of "interpretation": @redeemedzoomer did mention the names of few people that he considers to be either reliable or unreliable interpreters of the scriptures, and these replace the Basil's and the Cyprian's of orthodoxy.
Scripture is self-consistent, but it does not interpret itself, that is the job of the Holy Ghost.
To take to extremes:
- the extreme of orthodoxy is to fossilize everything so that the Holy Ghost is quenched because he simply can't get anybody to move beyond sacred tradition;
- the extreme of protestantism or evangelicalism is that the Holy Ghost is quenched because everybody is off doing their own interpretation and won't listen to him.
There are parallels to the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the time of Christ.
no no not "dont make images of God"
"Thou shalt not make any GRAVEN images of anything of Heaven above or the earth beneath."
dont be like that
God literally tells Moses to make images of Angels and even Statues just a few chapters down.
@@sidewaysfcs0718 FR
@@sidewaysfcs0718 What do you make of Hezekiah's destruction of the bronze serpent made by Moses in 2 Kings 18?
What gave you authority to deny ecumenical councils?
The Supreme papacy of Redeemed Zoomer. Obviously!
The Bible.
😅how?@@dariusmot8440
@@dariusmot8440 Which comes after the councils and not before. As well, the bible does not contradict the councils
Saint Peter did actually
to that comment at the end, I'm sure you'll give a more clear explanation but is sounds like you're saying you like sola scriptura because under it you can pick and choose what doctrines you hold to based on your own interpretation of the scripture
I mean thats basically what it comes down to. . .
@@TheMacDonald22 but nobody admits it so blatantly, caught me off guard
@@panose6542 fr, realizing that is what made me left Protestantism.
Which bible has an infallible authority, if different churches have different biblical cannons?
Thankyou for visiting Nikopol. Next time, take a look at our railroad, we have plenty of settlements along it, and go to to the old town to find the first church
Of course! Will do
all the ones recognized by the universal church
You should continued this romp through the councils. I think it would be interesting to see the reformed view of councils of the Catholic Church after 2nd Nicea.
My brain breaks when I hear that Bible > church when the church came first and was written by those who built the church on behalf of Jesus who created it!!!! The church came FIRST and is what the Bible is rooted in not the other way around!!!
Which church
The one true holy Catholic and apostolic church.
Which church *today* can claim to be the original church is the question. But let’s not pretend that there were “churches” during the apostolic era.
@@Alex-jv5cswell which church today is it?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 The Catholic Church
Eastern Orthodox. It’s pretty easy obvious they’ve held most true to the tenets of original church (as described above).
Merry Christmas Eve!
How can the assyrian church of the east think ecumenical councils are infallible, if they are Nestorian?
They don’t accept anything past Nicaea I and Constantinople I
Hey RZ, how do we know what books of the bible are canon since many denominations have different canon? If you can do that sometime I'd love to see it.
That’s coming up next! For now, listen to Jordan Cooper’s video “sola scriptura and tradition”
He’s a Lutheran pastor
I highly recommend a book by John Meade and Peter Gurry. If you don't want to read, there are some CZcams videos of them giving a summary. I like them because they represent different sides fairly.
For the NT, all "orthodox" churches use the same 27 books. The discrepancy is the Old Testament and this is an ancient battle going back to the 2nd and 1st Century BC. Even Jews were fighting over what we refer to as "Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical/the Second Temple Literature". Christians inherited this ancient debate. Most Jews nowadays use the same Masoretic Text as Protestants do, but there are small Jewish sects that are more like the Eastern Orthodox.
Remember that early Christians debated over this. Remember that the inerrant and infallible word of God is a faith statement. We have great pieces of evidence to prove that these documents are "miraculously" preserved well.
@@thomasc9036the 27 book canon was for ages, not agreed upon. It still isn't, the Syriac canon doesn't agree with the Catholic/Orthodox canon
Yeah there are 3 or 4 different ones. We all have the same new testament but the old differs depending on protestant, catholic, and then some orthodox ones use a third I think.
@@williampumpernickel4929 I didn't know that Syriac canon was different than others. That's good to know.
Disclaimer: I am not formally educated in theology in any way, merely brought up in the Presbyterian church as the son of an elder.
I find the perpetual virginity of Mary to be intuitively unlikely. From Matthew 1:24-25 [1] we are told Joseph and Mary did not consummate their marriage until Mary had given birth to Jesus. Now I don't know what the original Greek would actually mean with what is translated as "until", but the very fact that this is mentioned, and the fact that consummation is not just normal but an integral part of marriage, should mean we can expect that they did in fact consummate unless explicitly told otherwise.
Then in Matthew 12:46-50 [2], Jesus' mother and brothers came to see Him during His ministry. Some say these were sons of Joseph but not of Mary (sons from a previous marriage of Joseph), but I don't think that really makes much sense either - if that were the case, where is that wife of Joseph anywhere else in the Bible, and why are her sons hanging out with Mary? Another suggestion is that it was Mary of Clopas and her sons, but that would be his aunt and cousins, not mother and brothers. If that were so, would they not be referred to merely as relatives?
And then there is James, called the brother of Jesus. It has also been said that this James was the son of Mary of Clopas, which would make him a cousin - in which case the term "brother" is deceptive - or that he was a son of Joseph but not of Mary - a son from a previous marriage. Now that's less unreasonable, but I think it unlikely that Joseph had a previous marriage, and here's why - when Jesus was presented to the temple, he was not redeemed as the firstborn. Now, whether Joseph had a previous marriage or not, this is fine, because the law was that the firstborn of every womb must be redeemed (Exodus 13:1-2 [3]). But the reason He was not redeemed and was instead presented for lifelong service to God, was because Joseph and Mary could not afford to redeem Him. They also could not afford the standard offering of cleansing as prescribed in Leviticus 12 [4], instead bringing two doves or pigeons (Luke 2:22-24 [5]) - the provision in the law for the poor. Since Joseph and Mary were so poor, is it reasonable for Joseph to have another wife and other children that he needed to feed while he was betrothed to Mary? While it's not completely out of the question, I would call it financially irresponsible, to such a degree that I would argue it goes against the verse that says "Joseph was a righteous man" (Matthew 1:19 [6]). Joseph was willing to risk his own reputation to save Mary's life. We don't know anything about their betrothal or when it they intended to be married (bearing in mind that betrothal was as legally binding as marriage itself, but not completed or consummated), whether perhaps the marriage was brought forward as a result of Mary's pregnancy, but I think it possible that Joseph was working to build more financially stability to bring his wife home to, but God's timing trumped his.
So in conclusion: I cannot prove against the perpetual virginity of Mary (not that I expect I could, hundreds of years after the council in question), but I find it quite unlikely.
[1] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201%3A24-25&version=NIV
[2] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A46-50&version=NIV
[3] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+13%3A1-2&version=NIV
[4] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2012&version=NIV
[5] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A22-24&version=NIV
[6] www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A19&version=NIV - current NIV reads "Joseph was faithful to the law and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace", but previous NIV publishings and current NIV footnote reads "was a righteous man and did not want...". CSB, ESV, NASB and NKJV read similarly, using the conjunction "and" rather than "but" or "yet".
Merry Christmas to you all! God loves you!
Merry Christmas, Zoomer. 🎄❄🔔🎅🎁
Two important things emerged from the Council of Nicea. The Nicene Creed and Apollo Creed (aka St Nick) 😂
When are we got a video on canonicity and the apocrypha?
5:44 I'm a Catholic and my brother is baptist. Even he likes to joke about "Santa Claus punching a heretic in the face" from time to time. And then, I jokingly call him s heretic. Much fun is have by all involved.
Ey RZ, I would like to suggest to you a video idea. Something like matching percentages in dating apps but actually christian denominations, how does it seem?
So like a "chemistry-meter"?
Yep, that's pretty much it.
Nestorius also omitted "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father" when citing the Nicene Creed to Cyril. He *did not believe Jesus was homoousios* (of same substance) but rather that he was homoiousios (of like substance) which makes Jesus different from God.
This is not compatible with Nicene Christianity.
The Council of Florence may reaffirm the Filioque but the Council of Toledo established it.
Toledo was a local Council, the pronouncements of the Filioque in the Creed were also rejected for centuries by the same Papacy that later adopted the Filioque after Charlemagne and the Carolingian emperors naming Popes.
That's about 4 centuries of the Popes unanimously rejecting the Filioque in the Creed.
All of them
We use icons of Christ because the Nativity has made manifest the Invisible God
Fine, I get that. But from where do you get icon veneration more exactly? I agree that we can make art, but I see no basis in Scripture and the early church for icon veneration.
why should it only be found in scripture? @@dariusmot8440
@@dariusmot8440because its a painting of GOD so we should hold it sacred. do you think we should just throw it in the trash?
Merry Christmas Guys🎉
With the 5th Council,
Doesn’t the Bible say that Jesus Had Brothers. James starts his epistle by affirming he is the brother of Jesus and the Gospels tell the story of Mary and Jesus’s brothers coming to visit him, Mark 3:31-35. Isn’t that proof Mary did not stay a virgin and conceived other children?
Jesus had brothers but they had a different mother. Joseph was their father but another woman gave birth to them.
@@asentseto were does it say that in scripture though?
@@JonathanD7:"Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does." The English "brother" doesn't mean the same thing as The Greek one.
you never heard someone refer to someone else as their brother even though they aren't of the same womb? Also there is no word for "cousin" in Hebrew and used the word "Adelphi" to refer to what we know as cousins@@JonathanD7
When Mark says “Jesus Mom and siblings came to see him” I believe that does not refer to a friend as a brother
Merry Christmas Brothas and Sistas
so much respect for you as a Catholic
Would you take a picture of/with Christ if He was walking here among us today?
I wouldn't, unless He specifically told me to. And anyway it's inappropriate and disrespectful to take pictures of anyone without their consent.
“The entire church cannot be fundamentally wrong” uhhh. Yeah. Yeah it can
@@Kauahdhdhd I’m fully aware how my comment might make some people feel. I would say that the body of Christ, composed of imperfect fallible sinful humans, can agree on something and be wrong about it. I would also say that we have several examples from the New Testament of churches started by and watched over by the apostles, that fall into straight heresy. So the idea that believers, even believers close to the time of the very apostles of Christ, couldn’t commit to or believe false things, is insane to me. They can and they did and they do. Some worse than others, ie Roman Catholics compared to my Presbyterians brothers and sisters.
@@Kauahdhdhd Ok. I’m open for a conversation on this. What do you mean by whole church and what verses would you say support your position? Also, what denomination are you? I’m a Reformed Baptist leaning towards Independent Baptist with a flavor of Landmarkism.
Catholics stay with you! 😌
24:28 - Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me- or at least believe on account of the works themselves. (John 14:9-11)
This just shows that none of us has truly understood God's nature. Nor can we. The more precise we try to get in our descriptions, the less they make sense, and the less scripture makes sense when viewed through the lens of a theological perspective. If you need to study Theology and church history to be able to grasp the basics of the Christian faith, the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" seems to have undergone some serious changes since the Gospel was preached to the poor and illiterate in the 1st century.
@@erikabutterfly Ok friend, but what is that supposed to mean? God never changed, nor does he change. Please do clarify.
@@GodJesusChristlovesyou_knows_u I agree that God doesn't change, because that's something the Bible says about Him. I'm just skeptical of theological systems that claim to explain the nature and persons of God and exactly how they relate to one another. This might get me called a heretic, but if I started out on the premise that the doctrine of the trinity (as it is commonly understood nowadays) were irrefutably true, the scripture passage you quoted wouldn't make any sense. It doesn't fit the system. Jesus says the Father is in Him, and He is in the Father. The way I was taught the Trinity, is that while we worship one God in three persons, those persons are completely distinct from each other. I don't claim to fully understand it, but if a passage in the Bible doesn't match up with what Theologians say, I'd rather be skeptical of the Theologians than the word of God.
@@erikabutterfly @erikabutterfly I had exactly the same questions. I had heard about the 'concept' (if I am allowed to use that word) of the Holy Trinity only from others, and there were some seeds of doubt sowed in me. My only explanation back then was, "All these men who were truly born-again through God's Holy Spirit were guided by God's Holy Spirit". But, when God showed me random passages I read during my Bible reading....I can see just the same 'concept' of Holy Trinity 'being applied'....be it from Psalms & the Old Testament, or the New Testament....be it "the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"...and so on....or also see Isaiah 9, where Jesus is described as both Everlasting Father and prince of peace. Then see Philippians 1:19 and Romans 8:9, where the Spirit of God is also described as the Spirit of Jesus. Also, John 1 were it is said, "The Word was God. He was with God in the beginning" (clearly mentioning Jesus as God). Also, Jesus saying "I and my Father are one" are really nice examples of the same. Also, the Holy Spirit is God Himself because the Lord Jesus Christ very clearly mentioned Him as an advocate. Also, we can see in other parts that the "Spirit of God came upon him" or "the Spirit of God was hovering" and so on. The Spirit of God has to be God Himself, as God cannot have a mortal or non-immortal soul whom he sends to dwell in us and be with us forever. Also, note that the Spirit of God must be Omnipotent and Omniscient as God Himself. Last but not least, ask and pray to God Himself to show you through verses and passages that show that He is Triune, and numerous passages that show that Jesus(God the Son), God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are one. ...."Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened" (Matthew 7:7-8), "Ask (in my name) and you will receive, and your joy will be complete" (John 16:24)
Comments are gonna be poppin' on this one
*Munches popcorn*
Interesting, but confusing towards the end.
Very cool!
to the perpetual virginity dogma, discussed somewhere around minute 16:35 , isn't there very clear, even biblical evidence that jesus had siblings? I mean how could that be if mary stayed a virgin?
The Theotokos remained a virgin. Joseph had another wife and she became the mother of Jesus’s siblings. That’s the traditional teaching, I am pretty sure
my Catholic teacher told me the greek word for Jesus’s brothers is kind of like “family members”. you can call your brother your “family member” but they had other words for “brother” that they didn’t use
@@asentsetowait so they had a divorce?
No verses said Mary was their mother."Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does."from orthodoxwiki.
@@christianmarks6906 the people who hold to this theory regarding to Jesus brother generally believe that Joseph was an old man and a widow
Doesnt the Bible specify that Joseph doesnt lay with Mary for as long as shes pregnant with Christ, which would imply that he hit it afterwards, even if the bible doesnt necessarily speak on that in particular?
☠️
Yes, Matthew 1:25. It would make sense too. Sex within marriage wasn't considered unclean back then - on the contrary. It was the reason to get married. The catholic church eventually decided that sex, while necessary for procreation, was actually sinful and should be avoided as much as possible. There's no biblical basis for this. Then they also decided that Jesus could not be born to a sinful woman, so they invented this elaborate backstory on Mary's parents having conceived her without any lust ("immaculate conception", celebrated Dec. 8), and that Mary was perfectly sinless her entire life. No scriptural basis for this either. Based on those false premises (sex is sinful and Mary was sinless) they decided that Mary must have been a virgin forever.
TLDR: Just stick with scripture. It's much simpler and more reasonable. "Until" means "until".
@@erikabutterfly thank you, my man, I appreciate the breakdown.
As a Protestant I would be very interested in a video on the arguments made from the bible in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity, and why early Protestants adhered to this doctrine.
This video is so good. Thanks Zoomer.
Re: the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and why I disagree with it.
Mary was married to Joseph for at least 12 years. They were well enough in that time to travel to Egypt and back. They also traveled to Jerusalem with Jesus.
St Paul said that it was wrong for married couples to abstain from sexual intimacy unless there was illness or for an agreed.
Therefore Mary and Joseph would have been disobeying God if they had abstained for their entire married.
Is Paul God? Should I listen to Paul like I do God? lmao yeah right
@@Aksm91ManNavarNo. None of the Bible authors are God, including the Gospel writers. But all of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit and St Paul’s instruction has authority and weight.
The Virgin Mary was a Temple virgin committed to a life of chastity. After reaching the ago of menstruation, the widower Joseph was chosen as a protector since she could no longer live in the Temple. Having sexual relations would be a violation of an oath made to God
what, because paul says it does?@@christopherflux6254
Catholics do not think ecumenical councils are infallible. Such an idea has actually long been a source of debate within the church and caused many popes to refrain from calling them
Ecumenical councils are infallible because they are approved or confirmed by the Pope
Its very clear the Arians worshipped Jesus as God, they were trinitarians. They were just elaborate subordinatationists.
Please do a better job teaching what heresies actually were. Its important to not misrepresent what they claimed, especially on matters regarding the Trinity. If you don't, people might adopt heretical beliefs and not realize it.
Yes, Arians believed in a Trinity. But it was more like tritheism if you ask me...
Revelation 14:12
King James Version
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Please, talk about your thoughts on the after life!!!!
Amen❤❤🎉🎉🎉😊😊
Some greek orthodox churches also have images of the Father
You know I had never actually understood at all what “Icon Veneration” was until now. Can anyone explain how bowing to an “Icon” is not the most obvious straight up violation of the second commandment possible?
When I bow to a crucifix, it’s not out of veneration for the tree it was carved from, but for Jesus who it represents.
@@John_the_Paulye that’s a bit weird mate
About Mary being perpetually virgin, wouldn't that be ruled out by the fact that the bible shows pretty clearly that Jesus had brothers and sisters? If was a reason that people from his home town did not believe he was anything special. Matthew 13:54-48
And I'm pretty sure there are a lot more verses that show he had brothers and sisters in the flesh, unless they were all adopted, which I know of no proof of that being the case.
The word “αδελφοί” is rather nebulous. Paul often starts his letters with it and does not mean his literal brothers. The Virgin Mary was also a Temple virgin, committed to a life a chastity. At the age of menstruation, the widower Joseph is chosen as a protector. The Virgin has any sexual relations would mean that Joseph failed in his role
@danfsteeple what are your sources for the latter claims there?
@@Draezeth the Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James)
Matthew 1:24-25 NKJV
"[24] Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, [25] and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
"
This is the main reason I doubt Mary remained a virgin. Notice the "until" and the "firstborn". Both are words that would be unnecessary to include in the text, if it were to mean that Joseph never had relations with Mary and that Jesus was therefore her only son. You can legitimately question the meaning of the word "brothers" in biblical times, but the word "until" has always been as clear as it is today.
@@erikabutterflybut are you checking the original Greek or the strictly protestant KJV translation?
I listen to sleep
Hey, im thinking of becoming Catholic and i was wondering if you knew any good resources for me to learn more about it?
Sure. Listen to Jordan Cooper and Gavin Ortlund to learn why you should stay Protestant, and just convert to a form of Protestantism like Lutheranism or Anglicanism that still has deep catholic tradition while still putting Scripture first
join the Catholic Church
Council 1 (Nicea): Jesus Christ is God.
Council 2 (Constantinople): Jesus Christ is human and the Holy Spirit is God.
COuncil 3 (Ephesus): Jesus Christ is one person.
Council 4 (Chalcedon): Jesus Christ has two natures.
19:40 it's good that you say that about Modern American Individualism because I would say that about all the American Continent.
Unaltered Confession of Augsburg (1530), seventh and last ecumenical council of Catholic Christianity.
Internal validity of a council means that any dogmatic definition must not contradict the work of previous ecumenical councils. Thus, once the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed had been established, all subsequent councils were concerned to ratify the previous ecumenical councils, even Ephesus, for Nicene.
Yet, according to the Synod of Nicaea II, the person of Christ is only venerated, according to his image, because only the divinity can be worshipped. Thus, the humanity of Jesus Christ is considered separate from his divinity. As a result, the person of Christ is not the eternal Son of God as divine center of divine attribution of humanity and divinity, the object of worship, since he cannot be worshipped through his image, but a simple conjunction of the two natures, human and divine. This explains why he can only be venerated through his icon. Nicaea II is, therefore, no more than a Nestorian synod. As a result, Nicaea II is null and void on the grounds of Nestorianism, an accusation that can be repeated for Const.IV. Thereafter, no further ecumenical councils were recognized by the Pentarchy (1054).
On the other hand, the doctrine of the unaltered Augsburg Confession and Luther's Small Catechism (C.A. III & XX) have an internal ecumenical vocation, in that they are part of the coherent tradition of the Church, synthesized by the Creed, which this doctrine and tradition specify: Mt.13/52 and Is.7/9 (LXX). What's more, like the conciliar tradition, they lay claim to this coherent tradition (325-681 A.D).
The fact that the Augustana invariata was officially received by all the reformers (Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer) between 1536 and 1538, despite subsequent defections, whether latent or public, gives this doctrinal clarification of the Creed the status of the 7th Ecumenical Council. The defections undid the text of the Wittenberg Concord of 1536, but not the fact that the Augsburg Confession was given the honor it deserved (external validity).
This is why, following in the footsteps of the first six ecumenical councils, we accept the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism as irrefutable decisions of the 7th ecumenical council of the one Catholic Church of all Christendom.
The problem with the Council of Nicaea and, to a lesser extent, Constantinople is that the idea of the Trinity doesn't make sense. How can God be three things at the same time? It defies the Pauli exclusion principle which God is not immune from. Its like me saying I'm Logman but I'm also Jimmy. Jesus can't be God because there is only one God. God the Father created his biological Son, impregnated Mary via the Holy Spirit, which in turn is the mechanism of how God interacts with the world.
In short:
1. There is only one God
2. God is subject to the laws of physics and thereby which nullifies the idea of the Trinity
3. Jesus is both divine and human via being created by God who then impregnated Mary via the Holy Spirit giving him that 50/50 nature making him biologically God's Son
4. God uses the Holy Spirit to interact with the world similar to we use wifi and Bluetooth signals to interact with remote devices and the internet without actually "being there" to physically control a device (think wired vs wireless headphones)
ho ho ho merry christmas
Merry Christmas! 🎄
the 7th ecumenical council never said any of the things you said. you are twisting the words of it to fit your description
I have a question. I dont fully agree with any church, and our church is not a real one they are mostly hipocrates and me and my friends believe tho, so can we be considered a church, the 4 of us?
huh?
What are your thoughts on theistic evolution
I believe it but I prefer the term “evolutionary creationism”
Me to good to know and thx 😊 for the reply
I've often heard the claim the Calvin belived in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but the only evidence I've seen people give for that is the fact Calvin uses tge phrase "the virgin Mary" when he writes about her, but I would argue that's very weak evidence. Just calling her the virgin Mary doesn't mean he believed she was one perpetually. Unless there is more evidence out there that i haven't seen?
The Idea of Mary's perpetual virginity introduces so many problems, you have to accept that jesus wasn't born naturally, but like the Catholics believe jesus just appeared outside the womb after a flash of light. Otherwise Mary would have broke her virginity through giving birth naturally.
Classical Protestantism belives in perpetual virginity
Calling Mary "the mother of God" is still inaccurate, because "God" refers to the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as the Son.
Yes, but divinity is still properly predicated of the person of Christ, and as such the title of Theotokos is used to highlight that Mary is the mother of the person of Christ who possesses two natures (divine and human)
are you gonna try to retake the mainline family since you're adopted?
bro chill
More of a Trent guy myself!
Music at 4:37 ?
It’s called “Call to Create” you can find it on the Redeemed Zoomer SoundCloud
In Mathew doesn't it say he had brothers and sisters how could Mary be a virgin her whole life than?
I know and can perceive the truth of Christianity within my heart and spirit but my mind cannot make heads or tails of how it would be possible
This duality gives me great stress in my daily life unfortunately
Your body does things your mind cannot do, your spirit does things your mind cannot understand. Don't worry, be faithful.
13:35 lutheran reconquista!
didn't Jesus have siblings? also, Joseph didn't consummate his marriage with Mary till after Jesus was born. So i don't think Mary stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. however her dedication to God and willingness to go through the circumstances God gave her should remain admirable
Our Scriptures say nothing to indicate Jesus had siblings. What it says is that He had brothers, which at this time can be any family member of similar age. At the cross we see Jesus gave His mother to John the apostle indicating Mary had no other son to take care of her.
Tradition tells that the Virgin Mary was a Temple Virgin committed to chastity similar to a nun. She spent her youth in the Temple but upon the age of menstruation, she had to leave the Temple. Lots were cast and the elder widower Joseph was selected as her guardian. Joseph is humiliated at first because he has failed his mission as a protector of the Virgin’s virginity. The seedless conception is scandalous because of the Virgin’s chastity. But we know she had not known man
In regards to the 5th council and the perpetual virginity of Mary, does that mean that she never stopped being a virgin due to the birth, or that her and Joseph never had sex after Jesus birth?
Catholics would believe both. However the Bible doesn't confirm either. And if that were an important, central Christian belief, it would be reasonable to expect at least one out of the four gospels to mention it.