Matthew Chapter 1: Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Bible Study with Hank Hanegraaff)
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- For most of his Christian life, Hank says, he lacked a proper appreciation for the grandeur and glory of the Mother of our Savior. More serious than lack of enthusiasm, says Hank Hanegraaff (the host of the Bible Answer Man broadcast), was a continual denial of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord. Whenever the occasion arose, he would explain that the Bible explicitly tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters (e.g., Matthew 13:55-57). However, both in Hebrew and in Greek, the designation “brother” or “sister” is appropriately used to refer to relatives as well. For example, in Genesis, Jacob and Laban are called brothers, though Laban was in fact the uncle of Jacob. Moreover, there is no warrant, apart from theological prejudice, for holding that Mary and Joseph had sons and daughters following the birth of our Lord. Whether Joseph was a widower who had children by a previous marriage, and therefore the sons and daughters referred to in Scripture were stepchildren - or the children referenced in Scripture were the children of Joseph’s brother Cleopas, who died and left them in the care of Joseph - we cannot say with certainty. While the dogma of the immaculate conception is not found in Eastern Orthodoxy, the nature of the Mother of God was wondrously “purified by the Holy Spirit,” thus opening to all the way of union with God.
-------------------------------------------------
Connect with the Christian Research Institute (CRI):
🔴 Subscribe to our channel: www.youtube.co...
🔴 Subscribe to the Bible Answer Man on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to “Hank Unplugged” on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to our magazine the Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ Rᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Jᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ's weekly podcast www.spreaker.c...
📒 Visit CRI’s website: www.equip.org/
✅ Listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast live streaming Monday through Friday from 6-6:30 PM ET online at www.equip.org/
#hankhanegraaff #bibleanswerman #virginmary
Even if Mary remained a perpetual virgin, why is that so important? It's suggesting that having sexual relations, even in marriage to Joseph, would have tainted her in some way, which doesn't seem scriptural.
Mary is ever Virgin .
Because to protect Jesus’ divinity. The Incarnation is special calling for Mary. Incarnation has to be protected . Joseph guarded her status as ever virgin. She is handmaiden / spouse to Holy Spirit. She is New Eve. Jesus is new Adam.
God foreknew that there would be false accusations and heresies ahead of time.
The early church had to deal with accusations that Mary had an affair with Roman soldier.
Had they other children then other male siblings can claim to title of Messiah. But they would not be of divine nature.
Irenaeus is a disciple of Polycarp who is disciple of John. He taught this … that Mary is Ever Virgin.
John must have handed this teaching down since he knew Mary personally and was her caregiver.
James name is not mentioned in genealogy of Jesus in Matthew nor in Luke.
James would have been next in line for title of messiah after death of Jesus if he were in royal family but he never claimed to be title of messiah especially after death of Jesus. Therefore he is son of Cloapas not Joseph .
He was not part of Royal blood line.
Mary is the archetypal Christian. She's important because God was incarnate through her and God is made 'incarnate' through our lives as Christians as well. Paul says celibacy is the better way, so she is an example for those who choose to fully devote their lives to God and no one else, like Mary. She is the preeminent Christian example. Can we all do that? Paul even says no, but it is the better way. If your faith tradition has no professed nuns, priests or bishops, you wouldn't see this as significant.
Mary's perpetual virginity has to be understood in two ways: one, it shows her life-long, single-minded devotion to God. Secondly, Mary is to be the spiritual mother of all the disciples of Jesus (John 19:26-27, Revelation 12:17). Just as Eve was the mother of all the living, Mary, the New Eve, was the mother of all the believers in Jesus.
Where does the Bible call Mary the new Eve?
@@SwizzleTech The Bible does not call Mary the New Eve, say, directly. However, there are a couple of passages in the Bible from which we can infer this title to Mary. (1) Luke 1:38 - Mary said yes to the angel, whereas the Eve in the book of Genesis said no to God's commands. (2) John 19:26-27 - Jesus appoints Mary as the mother of all believers; in the book of Genesis, Eve was the mother of all the living and here Mary is the mother of all those who are reborn. (3) Romans 5:18-19 - Paul describes Jesus as the New Adam who undid the disobedience of the Old Adam; the same comparison between Adam and Jesus can be made with regard to Eve and Mary: through Eve's disobedience sin and death came to this world, whereas through the obedience of Mary, we are saved from sin and death by the New Adam, that is Jesus.
These are some of the reasons why Mary is called the New Eve.
Amen, Hank! I have learned so much from BAM over the years while I was an Evangelical. As an Orthodox Christian I now boldly proclaim…Most Holy Theotokos save us!
So sad to see Hank going down this road. “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.”
James 3:1
@Avingay Anfordstay you bring up some excellent points! Check out a short video “what are the differences between Catholics and protestants” on CZcams by Got Questions Ministries. As far as your answer to the number of Protestants check out the parable of the two paths in Matthew 7.
@Avingay Anfordstay well my friend, one thing is for sure...if we repent of our sins, trust in Christ alone for His work on the cross and believe that He died, was buried and rose again to give us life, then we can debate the secondary issues when we see each other in heaven!
So sad!? In what way? Please elaborate! You do know that Hank was a rigid protestant; evangelical in his stance( which is, theologically, a term unbeknownst to Paul, Peter, Ignatius, Polycarp and The Church by and large before....1517...do you? The question ought to be...what led the foremost evangelical protestant who has a show called "Bible Answer Man," to which it reached thousands and by whom the Christian Research Institution was established to convert to Orthodoxy! He was by and large western centric in his understanding of Christ, The Father and The Church. What changed?
I too was a protestant ( that moniker in itself demands unfolding!) And by the Grace of God found my way to Orthodoxy; The Faith of the Early Church that has been and will be preserved throughout! While in protestantism arguments remain over instrumentation in worship, spiritual gifts, The Work and Presence The Holy Spirit in the life of The Church in Orthodoxy there is no such thing! Ehh. This is getting long! Talk soon!
Yes, this is sad.
A Spankin for Hankin
That was the worst exegesis I have ever heard. Oi Vey. Hank, you know better than this. You need to repent.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his BRETHREN, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
G80 (Strong)
ἀδελφός
adelphos
ad-el-fos'
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): - brother.
Literally or figuratively? How do we know which one is being used in this passage?
1. Jesus goes to his OWN hometown nazareth where He grew up where people knew Him.
2. Let’s go with your logic. Was Virgin Mary his aunt or mother? Mother. Was Joseph his uncle or his dad that raised Him? His Dad. So why in the world all of a sudden are you saying the children mentioned are mere cousins? That is a massive argument from silence to prove a doctrine the early church fathers didn’t teach. You are actually proving Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox that came out of Catholicism did not exist until at the earliest the 4th century by doing this and not the original faithful church. Matthew is blatantly talking about IMMEDIATE family and anybody reading this is going to take it that way unless they have been brainwashed to believe something else. That is ridiculous what you are passing off as God’s word.
3. You do not make a whole doctrine off of one greek or hebrew word or a root of one word. That isn’t how you interpret Scripture brother. You know this. That is the stuff kabbalists, hebrew roots people and other false teachers do - take a part of a verse or only a few verses and then try to make it fit their own presuppositional doctrine. You literally can make the Bible say anything when doing that.
4. How about the pre-trib rapture teacher Mr. two PHD’s Dr. Thomas Ice doing that to the word apostasia trying to make it mean a pre-trib rapture when everywhere else in the Bible it means a falling away from the faith or leaving the faith and every atheist even knows this? I’m shocked and disappointed over this.
5. You do know this is a similar argument the rabbinical Jews use to try to prove that Mary was not a virgin at all with almah and betulah? Cherrypicking stuff to fit one’s doctrine is no longer teaching and educating but indoctrinating. You cannot pick and choose the definition you want to fit your own presupposition. You’re not using any logic here.
6. What significance would it make to even mention the four brothers and sisters if they were mere cousins? There is no purpose in even doing that if that is all they were.
7. It is pretty obvious that the Holy Spirit put this in the Bible to refute this false teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary that many would want to elevate her higher than a mere woman that was obedient to the Holy Spirit overshadowing her into somewhat of a goddess.
8. The only reason to even mention that Jesus had brothers is to prove she did not remain a virgin and that Jesus’ birth was THAT special. You are actually taking away how special Jesus’ birth was in order to elevate this false doctrine and make Mary more important.
9. And saying Jesus told John to take care of His mother while on the cross proves this is talking about cousins? That is silly. Jesus and his brothers were 20+ to 33 years old already when He said this to Mary and John. None of them believed in Jesus yet so your argument is very poor to say the least.
10. Secondly, the brothers and sisters may have moved away from where Mary lived as it seems Joseph had passed away at that point.
11. That is also pretty cruel to Joseph to have him get married when we are told to procreate and he isn’t allowed to do it.
12. This tradition of men teaching is like it is saying for her to have had sex within marriage was impure as if the act of sex in marriage is evil.
13. Sounds like you are purposely trying to convert people into Eastern Orthodox.
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
What were the people actually saying? “See, this Jesus was an ordinary man that came from an ordinary family.”
Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in HIS OWN HOUSE (abode).
Read that. In His own house. Now the scripture could have just said, “…a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country…” and stopped but it adds, “…and in his own house.” This shows that his earthly half- brothers and half-sisters did not honour Him as a prophet or the Son of God and who He obviously was.
Jhn 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Jhn 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
There is a simple explanation to this passage. There is no need to come up with the extreme teachings of Roman Catholicism. What do we know?
1. We know Joseph was much older than Mary when betrothed to her.
2. Jesus died at the age of 33 so that puts Mary’s age at about 46-48 when Jesus was crucified so Joseph most likely was 58 to 78 years old at that point. It was a very good chance Joseph was dead already and Mary was now a widow.
3. The sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph most likely got married and moved away somewhere.
4. None of the boys held to Jesus being the Son of God at this point. Refer back to my previous statements. Imagine growing up with Jesus. He is wowing everyone with His knowledge and doing miracles for over 3 years and confounding the best of the teachers of Israel with His wisdom. Now He is going to be crucified and even ALL THE APOSTLES RAN and denied Jesus. Even Peter didn’t stay strong enough and denied Jesus for a short period of time and they believed Jesus was who He said He was. His brothers didn’t, at least not yet. John was the only one that braved it out the best. Who would you have take care of your mother?
5. Peter was to become the first pastor in Jerusalem which would have kept him very busy.
6. John’s love for the Lord was very strong and would have been the best candidate to take care of Mary in those first years when the persecution was going to be the strongest with the unsaved Jews.
I believe saying Mary and Joseph had no other children actually diminishes the virgin birth with Jesus as the emphasis of the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary now is greater than the fact that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to be born without the sin nature.
That is my say on this. I never thought I would have to defend the faith after 15-20 years of hardcore apologetics with people in the church over the false religious systems of the world. Hank, please repent. You are going too far brother.
There is a word for COUSIN in the new testament and it is used 12 times so if these were cousins, why did the Holy Spirit use the word adelphos for the 4 boys and at least 2 girls instead of suggenes?
G4773 (KJC)
συγγενής
suggenēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 12
kinsmen, 5
Luk 14:12, Act 10:24, Rom 9:3, Rom 16:7, Rom 16:21
kinsman, 2
Jhn 18:26, Rom 16:11
cousin, 1
Luk 1:36
cousins, 1
Luk 1:58
kin, 1
Mrk 6:4
kinsfolk, 1
Luk 2:44
kinsfolks, 1
Luk 21:16
G4773 (Strong)
συγγενής
suggenēs
soong-ghen-ace'
From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman: - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman).
Total KJV occurrences: 12
So if you think you are wrong on this topic, what else are you wrong about?
The question applies also to you! Correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment!
@@orthodoxrocks9644 no, your right. I've recently changed my mind on the rapture doctrine myself. I love Hank but twice recently, this case and his interpretation of Genesis 6, in my opinion, have been wrong.
@@seangreen4227 I changed my view as well. So you are not far off! I was a protestant and avid promoter of the 5 solas at once, but the aphorism holds true," to study Church History, is to cease to be protestant!" 🙂😊
So thankful for Hank and his openness to share the faith. I trust he realizes he is in good company among myriads of fellow evangelicals who are returning to the roots of the Christian faith. While the Eastern Church or even Catholic Church can feel “foreign” to us modern Protestants, it only seems that way because of centuries of modifications and modernizations. As a Protestant slowly crossing the Tiber I can attest to the fact that there are some customs and beliefs that feel ancient and out of place. It sometimes takes a humble heart and broad shoulders to ask whether or not it is our modern permutation of the Christian tradition that is out of place. So thankful for channels like Hank’s.
To everyone angry with Hank's orthodox position, find a single church source before Zwengli that disagrees with Hank on this. Martin Luther and John Calvin both agreed with Hank. If all Christians throughout the world before the 15th century agreed on this, it should give you pause before dismissing it out of hand.
What an incredibly fallacious argument. Man is imperfect and prone to error, so the notion that man agreed one something for a very long time says absolutely nothing.
@spainkiller how do you know they are wrong and you are right.I am 100% sure you are a man
@@Spainkiller So in other words, no one will ever know the truth, because man is prone to error? Where do you get your source of authority?
@@merecatholicity This thing called the Bible, which is the perfect Word of God. You may have heard of it.
The Holy Spirit does the rest.
@@crimocampell1370 The Bible.
I can't for the life of me understand the need for Mary's post-partum and perpetual virginity in the first place.
Why would this be so important?
Absolutely no idea!
I was an RC for many many years - I was never able to buy into the Marionist dogma - I don’t think many do tbh but it was forced on us.
Meaning you could be an absolutely appalling RC, as I was, but a good Christian .... (hopefully!!!)
Exactly, only reason I see is to deify her and justify their idolatry of her.
@@victorrene3852 James White recently has done a few informative rebuttals - the most recent being - the Origen of this nonsense - very interesting stuff.
I am just shocked Hank has gone this way - a lesson to us all.
Hank,just as you say brother could mean close relative and went on this give the example of lot,brother could mean brother also and after all Jesus' brothers were also in ministry,so why didn't Jesus commit Mary to their care afterall they were relatives in ministry and would understood the need to care for their "mother"? I have loved the way you approach scriptural interpretation,this will not make me change my mind about your approach but i disagree with you. I absolutely recognise the place and honour of the womb that our Lord chose to come as the second Adam. Whether mary had children after Jesus will change nothing about sanctity of the Virgin birth and her place of grace and honour by our Lord. Certainly it had to be someone,it had to be a woman and it had to be according to God's own ordained way but certainly not by the contaminated seed of man that was cursed as a result of sin from the first Adam. Remember also when he was told his brothers are looking for him? He said who are my brothers and sisters.....those who do the will of my father...Although i disagree with you on this one,i say you are still the bible answer man. May the Lord continue to give us insight into his word.Amen
@@brendanfox8945 I would rather see someone become Orthodox than embrace the false teaching that’s filling evangelical churches these days.
Why would it be bad if Mary had a normal relationship with her husband Joesph?
@catbreath8361 > That issue is discussed in the HUP Brandi Willis interview www.equip.org/hank-unplugged-podcast-and-shorts/mary-does-the-mother-of-god-matter-to-us-with-brandi-willis-schreiber/
What would be bad if Jesus married and had children?
Hi brother Hank its also used in Assyrian which is Aramaic language.
Here is the point I take away from this video: Believe whatever you want as long as it is an even remotely plausible reading of the original language. Never mind that you need to twist your brain into a pretzel to squeeze your beloved doctrine into the scriptures. If you can get away with it, then do it. The Bible has obviously become secondary to this Bible answer man.
The Perpetual virginity of mary is a teaching universal over all forms of christendom including orthodoxy, Roman catholicism and the reformers. 🤣
@@theosis_pilgrim8994 Even if that were true, it is still wrong and was never taught in the Bible. It is a convoluted, false doctrine made up out of thin air and bad hermeneutics and eisegesis.
@@CRoadwarrior lol the "bible" wasn't compiled until the 4th century and you don't have the right canon.
@@theosis_pilgrim8994 When the Bible was "compiled" is not the issue and is not a valid argument. And your opinion on the "right canon" is subjective, and ultimately spurious due to the facts of the matter that Roman Catholics ignore. So once again, Scripture doesn't support any "perpetual virgin" claims for Mary.
@@CRoadwarrior again the canon being established predates the schism by nearly an entire millenia. You are ignoring your massive logical inconsistencies. You take the universal teachings of christology, triadology, and what you beleive to be scripture from the same people you call rank heretics. Lol I'm not Roman catholic
Scripture is how we know if traditions are true. Tradition never trumps scripture.... Hank use to know this. If you are so confident in this debate James White on this... I doubt you will. Marry was a good women used by God but just a women who was married to Joseph and continued her married duties after Jesus was born
If Hank is right and she was a perpetual virgin then wow did Joseph really get a bad deal. Notice that Hank does not talk about the implications this has on the life of Joseph.
Actually tradition is how we know what is truly scripture and what is not. The whole christian faith is tradition which starts with Jesus and the apostles, in which these teachings where handed down through preaching and eventually where penned down and would be codified centuries later and become known as what we call the bible.
As far as mary, the perpetual virginity is the understanding of the ancient Church. Even the early reformers agreed, now you can disagree but i tend to favor the early church's position not only because this was the early consensus of the fathers but because its biblical as well.
@@jeffallanday in the book of Numbers it talks about women who take vows to be virgins and that if she gets married the man could either honor her vows of virginty or could reject it. If he honored them it was perpetual and could not be undone. Point is some men not all but some would enter into this unique type of marriage and St. Joseph was one of them and second is that even in the bible we see this could be a possible scenario for a married couple.
@@alfreds.2335 that is not true and you will fall into grave error if interrupt scripture in light of tradition instead of tradition in light of scripture.... scripture always trumps tradition.
@@edmcfall3519 Sola Scriptura was not the belief of the early church, for it is contradicted by the historical practice of the first generations of Christians, who did not have the N.T., but only the church- the apostles and their successors- to teach them how the new covenant fulfilled and surpassed the old covenant. Further sola scriptura assumes no ultimate need for the larger context of the church's tradition in teaching. However, not only is the canon of scripture incapable of being identified apart from tradition, but the meaning of scripture cannot be fully grasped. Protestants argue that scripture is "clear", but they disagree even among themselves as to what it means. This is crucial to your argument, because you say tradition can only be accepted if it agrees with scripture, but really only if it agrees with your interpretation of the bible.
Mr. Hanegraaff can no longer be considered the "Bible Answer Man" - having traded that moniker in for a new gig - The Orthodox Answer Man. And the two certainly aren't synonymous since jettisoning sola scriptura and converting to the Eastern way of gnosticism.
Huh? Sola Scriptura didn't exist before 1517! That "moniker," wouldn't be recognized by the most backsliding of believers from the 1st thru the 16th centuries! I'd encourage you to study before making these statements!
@@orthodoxrocks9644 And in return, I'd suggest you do the same thing - study and be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
In that vein, Hanegraff has fallen well short of what the Scriptures instruct us to do and has given himself over the traditions of men.
Essentially then, you are unaware of the Scriptures claim about itself found at Hebrews 4 -
Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
@@SAOProductions1955 I have studied Scripture and facilitate courses on Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics. The Scriptures have never been of private interpretation, never and yet you are trying to share yours with me. Hank and I are speaking from Holy Tradition; that which has been held and passed down via word, epistle or any other means just as Paul wrote about in his epistles.. Not from our own resources. I appreciate your zeal and passion. I was right there like you defending what I thought to be the right way but then started digging deeper and studying the History of Christianity and saw how I had zeal but without knowledge. I hope you too will go back and trace the Faith you profess and how God has moved it through the ages!! Study Orthodoxy and what it propounds and then come back and share with me your opinions!!
God Bless!!
@@orthodoxrocks9644 There is absolutely nothing "holy" about your holding to the traditions that you do. Period! And your appeal to antiquity is suspect and misleading too! As for your suggestion that I go back and do more study - I have - I was seriously involved for a time in checking out Orthodoxy and because of that study found it to be fraudulent and deceptive in it's appeals to beauty and mystery and even history. That's why I have rejected your "opinions" on these matters.
@@SAOProductions1955 please share with me your "data" about what you found to be "not Holy," about Orthodoxy and the "false appeals," to beauty. Please share!
I used to listen to Hank when he was on BOTT radio here in KCMO and I learned a lot from him. So, to see him go down this road really breaks my heart. He went from teaching orthodox/correct doctrine to converting to Eastern Orthodoxy and teaching unorthodox doctrine. Once teaching nationally on radio to tens of thousands of people to only having less than 1,000 people watch/listen to this "σκύβαλον/skybalon."
Michael, I’d encourage you to learn more about the Orthodox faith before making such a critique. I spent the last year studying it and now have become a catechumen-after 49 years as a “Protestant”.
@@osbujeff1 You assume that I do not know anything about Orthodox eastern faith. Secondly, I know enough about it, and Hank, to know/understand that Hank is preaching/teaching heresy. Third, just because you and Hank have left the TRUTH does not mean that I am foolish enough to follow you into heresy. If you and Hank want to jump off of the bridge of Biblical TRUTH into the waters of heresy that is your problem, but do not expect us educated Protestants to jump with you.
@@michaelg.tucker6363 “Educated Protestants” like Luther and Calvin were Roman Catholics who started their religious movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church, not to create another. Yet they did hold on to Catholic beliefs such as infant baptism and the Holy Eucharist being the literal body and blood of Christ. Luther had the opportunity to reach out to the Eastern Orthodox archbishops and requested their input on their confessional statements. Unfortunately due to the delays in communication, Luther’s movement began to be popularized as an independent religion instead of reconnecting with the Orthodox Church from which the Roman west-and by extension, Protestantism-broke off from, leaving the true faith.
What are your top 3 objections to the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy?
@@osbujeff1 My dear sir Reformed Conservative Protestantism is the true Christian faith. And both Calvin and Luther ended up rejecting many Roman Catholic theological doctrines and no longer associated themselves with the Roman Catholic church. We Protestants also agree with the Roman Catholics on virgin birth, trinity, resurrection, original sin, Heaven and Hell, angels demons and the devil, BUT just because we agree with them on those theological issues does not make us the same religion. Even the heretics the Jehovah Witnesses believe many of those things as well, BUT we Christians definitely would never consider the J.W.'s a true religion. Even the Muslims believe some of the same doctrines as Christians do and they are also a heretic religion of the devil as well. So your argument about Luther and Calvin and Protestantism does not hold water.
:-)
@@michaelg.tucker6363 My point is that Eastern Orthodoxy never had to reform, branch off, or change the doctrines that were passed on by the Apostles and to the bishops they appointed. Nothing was borrowed or created out of thin air like Calvinism-teachings that were a reaction to Roman Catholic doctrines and never held by the early Church Fathers. Orthodoxy remains unchanged in its doctrines.
I’ll ask again: what are your top 3 objections to the teachings of Orthodoxy?
Thank you, Hank. While I remain undecided on this very important issue, I find it odd that people 2,000 years removed apparently are confident that they know what took place in Mary and Joseph's marriage, as though they were there.... History does not lie on this issue, and it is compelling me to dig deeper.
But there is no history. Only competing folktales. Read the summary of the video and see that it says as much. History can't be your friend here. Again, read the summary - Hank is only saying that the situation can't be understood as presented in the Bible and can only be got at by extra-Biblical sources that, unfortunately, can't agree.
@@johnnygnash2253 *church history
Yes Jonah and study the Greek word Adelphi , it did not mean actual brother and meant brothers in Christ , Im of Greek origin and studied the Greek language in depth
@@johnnygnash2253 Many of the early church fathers knew the Theotokos personally. The church has preserved the backstory of the Mother of God through its tradition (including scripture, hymns, icons and writings of the early church fathers). Calling the witness of the church "folktales" is sophistry.
In the Bible, it's worth noting that the Theotokos expresses complete confusion regarding how she will conceive a child (in spite of being betrothed): Why? This really only makes sense if you understand that Mary was never going to consummate the marriage, because of her dedication as a Temple Virgin.
It's unfortunate how Hank has fallen for this. The Bible is pretty clear and invoking tradition from hundreds of years later is very problematic. Mary is unique, blessed, and to be honored, for sure, but to say she remained sinless is simply unbiblical.
Whose interpretation are you going by in passing such a judgment? Curious?
He didn’t say she remained sinless. As Orthodox Christians, we don’t believe that the Theotokos was sinless. But we do believe she remained a virgin until death and lived a saintly life. Martin Luther and John Wesley believed the same which shows this wasn’t always such a controversial issue among Protestants.
We must read the Bible as a whole not in bits and pieces / thank you Hank! I appreciated this explanation.
You realize this video is Hank yanking bits and pieces of the bible to support an un-biblical doctrine just because he now has to defend the orthodox church right?
Rachel, you're easily led astray. See here: 2 Timothy 3:6
He's doing theological gymnastics actually
@@carstontoedter1333 the New Testament was written for the Orthodox Church, shared within the Orthodox Church and ultimately curated BY the Orthodox Church. Holy Orthodoxy predates the Bible as you know it.
Tradition (written or unwritten) is authoritative, and entirely biblical:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." 2 Thess 2:15
"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 1:13
@@ericlammerman2777 I should probably delete this comment. I was an ignorant Calvinist who didn't understand orthodox doctrine. Since I posted it I have converted to the Catholic church, and agree with you fully on most of your points (though we likely disagree where exactly the true church lies) pax Christi friend.
Mark and Matthew both refer to Jesus’ brother James (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55) Luke and Paul refer to him not just as a brother of Jesus, but also as a leader in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 2:9). Mark 3:21 tells us that his siblings thought he was out of his mind. John 7:3-5 tell us that Jesus’ brothers mocked him and didn’t believe in him. While these verses don’t explicitly name James, it’s very possible he was included in these stories. This is quite an embarrassing admission from two gospel writers. The early church wouldn’t want to put one of their chief leaders as a former mocking skeptic if it wasn’t likely true.
Thank you Mr. Hanegraaff. I remember my dad having you on the radio when I was a kid 10 or so years ago. On my journey to becoming Catholic it has been very helpful to know that someone else who is very scripturally minded and from an Evangelical background came to many of the same conclusions that I have come to over the last couple of years.
Yeah so this is my breaking point. I cannot in good faith take anything Hank says seriously anymore. I've only been listening for the past few weeks on these old archives, and now after I found this one...
Destroying the legitimacy of Genesis is bad enough, but there's no way to rectify this dogma of Mary with actual scripture. Your former interpretation was correct. I see you turned to Eastern Orthodox some time ago, which I did not realize until recently. So that's where this came from.
You must be catholic
Good talk, I'm in a stage of my life where I'm going from mental assertion to true belief, this is a very hard concept for me still, thank you for everything you do and bless you.
John was the only one there. Such a stretch you use to make it right it’s egregious. Joseph hadn’t known his wife until after she delivered Christ very plain what that implies
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Luke 11:27-28
Boy, did Jesus miss an opportunity to venerate his mama. The E. Orthodox and Rom Catholics would have done much better.
Jesus was making a point here, not casting shade on His mother. That would be a sin.
@@ericlammerman2777 I understand. My point was that he missed a perfect opportunity to venerate his earthly mother to the same degree of later church traditions-both East and west. Why would he not do that if she were so special?
As far as “screen time” goes in sacred scripture the inspired writers gave Mary very little. But the “Church” has given Mary a starring role based mainly on the Magnificat…”For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for HE WHO IS MIGHTY HAS DONE GREAT THINGS FOR ME” Luke 1:48-49
So Mary predicts that she will be called blessed-and rightly so-but for what reason? Where is the focus of the praise in this passage? Is it on Mary? Or is it on the Lord? Go back and reread the passage. I think the answer is obvious.
So how do we go from Mary’s Magnificat to…
Mary, The Perpetual Virgin?
Mary, The Queen of Heaven?
Mary, immaculately conceived?
Mary, The Co-Redemptrix with Christ?
Mary, a typology of the Ark of the Covenant and the burning bush?
Answer: Developing Church Traditions who acted as their own authority and not under the authority of sacred scripture.
It’s more than a stretch to prove any of these Marion dogmas from the pages of scripture. All are virtually proclaimed by the church and church traditions with little to no basis in God’s Word. Now contrast this with doctrines like The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the sovereignty of the Triune God. These truths can be clearly understood and defended from the pages of scripture because these truths ARE IN sacred scripture.
Ultimately, the question is one of authority.
Is it Sola Scriptura?
Or Sola Ecclesia?
Thank you Sir, i keep wondering whether the foundation of our faith is tradition or scripture, how RCs manage to see all there things without evaluating them in light of scripture and knowing very well the heretic movements of the history of the church to be quite frank is difficult for me. If it is scripture that has scaled my eyes and understanding then whom have i believed? Must i believe men or his infallible word?
@@kofi7110 I totally agree with you. It’s hard to give any divine, ultimate authority to either the Eastern or Western Churches when the Church Fathers (embraced by both the east and the west) at times have deviated so far from God’s word. That being said…the Church Fathers (as a group) I have tremendous respect for. I mean, Athanasius alone is such a hero in the History of the church! I firmly believe that God used these fallible men to advance the church according to his purposes. But all of these traditions that developed over the years cluttering up the works and created seemingly out of flights of fancy without any significant grounding in God’s word is just not to be trusted or believed as authoritative.
Purgatory?
Treasury of Merit?
Praying for the dead?
Theosis?
Where are these things in God’s Word? Or what shoestring of a scripture has been taken and woven into a steel cable by church traditions?
Im with you-I’ll stick God’s infallible word.
@@harveybarham the word Trinity is not in bible, does that mean it Is in error? You’re not digging hard enough. Just Google your questions about purgatory , etc… and you will find the truth.
I’m not sure that I agree with Hank’s position as I have only studied the scriptures in the English language (KJ,NKJ, NIV, Living, maybe a couple others). It seems logical to me that the Protestant view is accurate. I was not raised to venerate Mary mother of Jesus, just to respect and admire her. She is certainly deserving of that. Several years back I heard a respected mainstream denomination mega church minister suggest that the Bible has been misinterpreted over all the centuries over lgbtq issues without any evidence to support the theory and that sort of opens the door for support of a lot of centuries old heresies. On the other hand, I don’t know that Hank’s current view takes anything away from the Devine nature of Christ Jesus. I’ll still listen to him.
Very sad SMH I can't consider him the Bible answer man anymore.
@sowin2u Maybe he’s not the “evangelical” Bible Answer Man but he is still the Bible Answer Man.
I wouldn't be dogmatic on either position. Best to stick to essential relationship with Christ in Salvation Life.❤
Just as I was starting to enjoy your teachings, thinking they were all doctrinally sound. You CAN NOT mix truth with error. I pray you repent.....
I understand the argument can be made that scripture isn't explicit about Marry having children after Jesus. What I can't understand is the argument that she definitely was a perpetual virgin outside of Catholic tradition. God said to be fruitful and multiply Paul said you shouldn't abstain from intercourse with your spouse except for fasting. I don't see how you're more holy for abstaining from sex then you are from fulfilling your role as a wife and mother. If you're just as certain now that Mary was a virgin as you were then that she had children after Jesus with the same evidence why should I trust that evidence? My point is I don't see the benefit of preaching that Marry was a perpetual virgin with nothing explicit from scripture unless the ultimate goal is to show that any and all sex is evil which Augustine alluded to in his writings.
You are correct. Mary is not the mediator of the New Covenant. She needs a Savior just like us. Both her mother and her father were sinners. We do not worship Mary.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Watch the CZcams videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
============================================
We also do not get into the New Covenant through water baptism.
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit)
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church?
The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again)
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
(ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation.
(GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things.
(KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357
(NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
(NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established.
(YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
@@SpotterVideothank you, but I hope you didn't put that together just for me because your first statement is the only one that had anything to do with my actual question. I don't disagree with your comments I simply was asking about People's belief in the perpetual virginity of Marry, which doesn't make sense to me.
@@timmorgan3164 Nobody can completely understand the Bile unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
How sad! Hank! What happened? You were an intense teacher to me for years but your conversion with Mary worship is so out of line! You were my teacher for years. Prayers…😢
@swankyswig51 Why do you say "Mary worship"?
Interesting, odd that Luke would call Elizabeth Mary's relative and the brothers of Jesus His brothers. Odd that in John 7:5 we are told that His brothers did not believe in Him.
In Matthew 12 when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers were outside He pointed to the believers in front of Him and said, "Here are My mother and brothers"! He went further, He said, "Anyone who does the will of God is My brother, My sister, My mother"! This was the reason why Jesus left Mary with John. His brothers did not believe in Him and He loved John.
Whats interesting also is that from the creation of the first Christian Church in Acts thru Revelation no Apostle, no writer of any book taught Mary, preached Mary, wrote about Mary, even mentioned Mary! The Apostle John, caretaker of Mary after the cross never mentioned her by name, never told us she was of any importance. The Apostle Paul, writer of half of the New Testament, never mentioned her. The Apostle Peter, the Catholic rock, never mentioned her, not a single Hail Mary!
Mary, like John the Baptist are prophecy fulfilled. Neither have an active role in our salvation. Does the Holy Spirit intercede for prayers to Mary, or God alone?
Is dividing our worship time to include time devoted to Mary taking from God?
Jesus even said John the Baptist was the greatest...
Many give Mary titles like, "the mother of God", "the new ark", "the queen of heaven"! They place her so high that she rivals God Himself! Yet, if scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit did not call her these titles than maybe there was a reason.
The woman shouted, "Blessed is the woman who birthed you and breasts that nursed you"! Jesus immediately took our eyes off of Mary and placed them solely on God! He said, "Rather blessed are those who hear the Word of God and obey"!
Hank ceased being the “Bible” answer man years ago. When confronted with something in scripture that doesn’t jive with his tradition, he usually justifies it using “the historical Christian faith.” He does it again here since he converted to EO.
I recommend a video in 3 parts. It is the debate between Hank and Mark Hitchcock over the date that Revelation was written. Summary of the debate: Mark demolished Hank. The reason Jesus gave His mother to John was two-fold: 1. John and Mary were there at the Lord's crucifixion, and His half-siblings were not. 2. John was a believing disciple, and Jesus' brothers and sisters were not. None of them came to believe in Him until after the resurrection. I am so glad that Hank is no longer on the radio, where he was given many years to do great damage to the body of Christ.
@tedmerritt9048 Hank gives more reasons for the tradition of perpetual virginity in Truth Matters Life Matters More: www.equip.org/product/truth-matters-life-matters-more/ . Perpetual virginity discussed in this Hank Unplugged episode with Nathan Jacobs czcams.com/video/0IkWN4WgIKc/video.htmlsi=-O8nQKnzYMuluDsB The Hitchcock and Hanegraaff debate is irrelevant to the discussion of perpetual virginity.
@@BibleAnswerMan The debate is 100% relevant because it shows that Hank is unwilling to bow to Scripture. He admitted to Mark in an elevator full of people (after the debate was over) that "You really got me." Mark asked him, "Then why won't you change your position?" Hank said nothing, turned his face toward the wall of the elevator, and sulked the rest of the ride down. And here we are, many years later, and Hank has never said one word to his audience that he was wrong, even though he knows beyond all doubt that he is. Your "answer" to my charge only helps prove my point. I care nothing about a tradition unless it squares with Scripture. Hank is every bit as wrong in his eschatology as he is in his new and fallacious take on Mary's virginity. Quite frankly, the defense of this doctrine is nothing short of perverse. If Hank wants to hang his hat on tradition, there is plenty of evidence from church history that tells us that the books of James and Jude were both penned by Jesus' half-brothers, i.e., they were Mary's sons. There is no getting around Matt. 1:25: "...(Joseph) did not know her (Mary) till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." Hank has been going the wrong direction for a long time, and sadly it looks as though his attraction to a broadening variety of heresies is gaining momentum.
@@tedmerritt9048 Matthew 1:25 is not conclusive one way or another; it can cut both ways. So don't take this verse as a proof text that Mary and Joseph had children together.
In Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 people talk about the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus, but can we trust these people said? If yes, then we should be able to trust their opinion regarding Jesus also.
The most important passages that prove the perpetual virginity of Mary are the following: Matthew 27:55-56, Mark 15:40-41, 47, John 19:25, Jude verse 1.
@@albertd.6179 None of the passages you mentioned in Matthew, Mark, John, and Jude have anything to do with anyone’s virginity. It has been accepted throughout church history that the books of James and Jude were written by the half-brothers of our Lord. To say that Mary was a perpetual virgin is to completely defeat a major purpose of marriage. It is perverse in that it denies one of God’s greatest gifts in human relationships. If she was a perpetual virgin (which she most definitely was not - Matt. 1:24-25), that in no way contributed to her holiness or sinlessness. Read I Cor. 7:2-5. Sex is a normal and perfectly accepted part of marriage, and God expects married couples to engage in it as a part of their lives together. Read Song of Solomon. What Hank Hanegraaff is espousing here is sick, perverse, and even blasphemous. I urge all who believe what he says about this subject to repent!
@@tedmerritt9048 Matthew 27:55-56 says, “Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Mark 15:40-41 says, “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome….”
Mark 15:47 says, “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.”
Mark 16:1 says, “When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices….”
John 19:25 says, “Meanwhile standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
Jude verse 1 says, “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James….”
According to Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, Jesus has four brothers: James, Joseph (Joses), Simon and Judas (Jude).
Both Matthew 27:55-56 and Mark 15:40-41, 47 identify James and Joseph as the children of another Mary. Jude verse 1 identifies Jude as the brother of James.
It means James, Joseph and Jude are the children of the same mother called Mary who is not the mother of Jesus. Only Simon is not identified.
From this we can conclude that the so-called brothers of Jesus were actually the children of another Mary. Secondly, it means the people of Nazareth were confused with two Marys; they got mixed with the true identity of Jesus’ Mother Mary and another Mary who had four sons.
Who is the Mary with the four sons? She is the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus and wife of Clopas (John 19:25).
From the above study, we have a strong ground to conclude that the so-called brothers of Jesus were the children of another Mary, perhaps the wife of Clopas and own sister or cousin sister of Mary, mother of Jesus.
Doesn't Matthew 1:25 suggest otherwise?
Exactly. It's very clear that Jospeph and Mary had sexual relations *after* the birth of Christ.
@@Spainkiller hes a catholic
He completely ruined Walter's legacy here its absolutely abhorrent
And isnt he dying unrepentantly man
Even when faced with death he doesnt repent
Yet goes out of his way to constantly broadcast false doctrine
Its utterly mindblowing
@@jgvtc559 Who is this Walter you’re referring to, by the way?
@@Spainkiller it is not clear at all, just as Hank brought up, "Michal had no children UNTIL she died", ( 2 Samuel 6). Did Michal then have children AFTER SHE DIED? if it is so clear, why did many of the Protestant reformers teach Mary remained a virgin after having Jesus
Plus, had Mary planned on having future relations, she would not have questioned the Archangel Gabriel on how a future conception would take place. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@jgvtc559 Hank has left the man made Protestant traditions in search of the True Gospel! Mary did not have other biological children than Jesus, she whom all generations shall call blessed, she the foretold woman in Genesis at enmity with satan! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Joseph was picked by God because he must have been very pious. After Heavenly Visitations he would never view Mary as someone who he should even try to have any kind of sexual relations with.
🙏
Disappointed by this nonsense. Elisabeth’s appreciation for Mary is a totally understandable enthusiasm of the fact that Mary was to be the vessel for the messiah’s birth. That’s it. It’s a giant privilege, yes, but Mary was special because she got chosen; she didn’t get chosen because she was special. She has the proper bloodline, but that’s it.
The focus should always be on Christ. This ‘appreciation’ of Mary is taking away from that.
Spainkiller, Not True, as Mary was CHOSEN by God for her humility, she whom all generations shall call blessed! Elizabeth felt unworthy as the. MOTHER of the Lord approached her. Reverence for Mary, the Queen Mother of the King in the Davidic line of royalty, is reverence to God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Yes, humility is always presented as a desirable virtue/fruit of the spirit throughout God's word. But Mary was a sinner before she got pregnant and she was a sinner after she delivered Christ. She was a flawed human being, in need of deliverance as much as any of us. She's a wonderful, blessed and important biblical figure, but she is worthy of reverence as much (read: as little) as, say, king David.
@@Spainkiller No, Mary was not a sinner, nor was Mary born in sin, for just as God was very specific about how the ark of the covenant of old was to be designed, as He was to dwell there in a unique and special way before, all the more Mary, as Mary is the foretold woman in Genesis at enmity with satan, she AND her offspring, Jesus Christ, as Mary was saluted by the Archangel Gabriel as being full of grace, even before baptism which removes sin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
No my friend you judge all this from a Protestant point of view if Holly Mother didn’t agree with the angel Gabriel God the father could not save no one.
@@matthewbroderick8756 None of that is biblical. It's all erroneous human interpretation. You are being deceived.
Semiramis 2.0!
But it makes no sense that Joseph would remain celibate while being married. Mary called God her savior. She needed a savior as well.
@sethgibson2869 Why would not Joseph remain celibate? Cannot one make such a life long vow?
@@BibleAnswerMan As a single person, yes. But to remain celibate while married doesn’t seem too plausible. And even if she didn’t remain a virgin in marriage, it is not a sin. God blessed that union.
Why is this important to know?
@brendag8418 Why would any of what Hank talked on Mary's perpetual virginity be irrelevant?
Matthew 1:25... narrates that "he (Joseph - husband of Blessed Mary) KNEW (had marital sex) her not until she brought forth a SON and he (Joseph) called/named Him Jesus."
The English word "KNEW or KNOWN" in the context of the Holy Scripture (Word of God) is a modest way to say "had Marital Sex."... nothing is CLEARER than this Biblical passage...
However, since God took her VIRGINITY with her consent at a younger age (perhaps not even of legal age of 18 years old in our time), I firmly believe that God Almighty had RESTORED (gave back) Blessed Mary's Virginity before she died even after having other Biological Children from her husband Joseph...
Nothing is Impossible with God if God wills it... When God takes something, God also gives it back... When God closed the Door, God also opened another Door... When God allowed the 1st Temple to be destroyed, God also allowed the 2nd Temple to be restored...
This "VIRGINITY RESTORATION" of Blessed Mary falls under the SPOKEN/ORAL TRADITION of the early CHURCHES in Asia Minor of the 1st Century A.D. and not under the written/epistle Tradition taught by the Apostles of Christ...
This became the Roman Catholic Doctrine of "Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," which I firmly believe is God's sole doing and not Blessed Mary's self-doing alone...
Glory, Praise, and Thanks be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen...
Hank has always been a blessing and given so many many great answers to Bible questions, but I humbly disagree with Hank on this issue. This will be the first Hank video I'll be down voting.
I still love you Hank and still believe in your ministry but I think you're wrong on this one and your explanation is unusually unconvincing.
Given that my Bible knowledge is minimal compared to Hank's great learning, I'll give Hank the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind.
Hank, 1 Corinthians 7 speaks against permanent abstinence for married couples. Assuming this is from God, it applied to J&M.
Saint Joseph and the Mother of God never married, though. Saint Joseph the Betrothed, as he is known in Orthodoxy, offered protection and care for Mary until she could serve in the temple once again (after she stopped menstruating).
Mary Ever Virgin pray for us!
@J DV 🤔 hmm ok i have one. The apostles never taught us which books are to be included in the Old and New Testament i.e. the canon. Ill take my $100 now😎
I wonder if Hank is an Open Theist?
Hank has never been an open theist, neither is he one now, nor likely to be one in the future.
See…
www.equip.org/bible_answers/does-god-know-the-future-2/
www.equip.org/bible_answers/does-god-repent-/
I would like to know about the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church
We recommend reading Hank's book which is a good introduction. amzn.to/2Ycd3CX
What about Romans 8:29?
Romans 8:28-29 hearkens to God’s sovereignty over all things. So Christianity upholds divine sovereignty, we must also affirm divine justice, God’s ways are just and true, but we also uphold genuine human responsibility. We are all culpable for our actions. Free will is something that must never be quickly dismissed in any discussion on divine sovereignty, divine justice, and human responsibility. See www.equip.org/articles/how-does-free-will-affect-faith/ www.equip.org/articles/reformed-theology-resurgence/ www.equip.org/articles/the-divine-sovereigntyhuman-responsibility-debate-part-one/ www.equip.org/articles/the-divine-sovereigntyhuman-responsibility-debate/ www.equip.org/articles/how-should-christians-approach-the-problem-of-evil/
Good points. But what about the cultural norm they may have followed? Or that they were both young and in love and so the natural passions in holy marriage could have been met in holy sex? Did Joseph and Mary commit to a life together but without sex? What would be a reason for that? Wouldn’t this put either one in a position of temptation when natural sex drives grow?
Joseph was an elderly widower, he was not young.
Amen 🙏🏼
I thought they were step-siblings in Orthodox tradition. The children of Joseph, the old widower. Is the cousins tack something new?
You are correct, the step-children tradition, Joseph being a widower taking care of Mary, as illustrated in the Protevangelium of James, is commonly held amongst the Eastern Orthodox. This can be read about in Welcome to the Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity by Frederica Mathewes-Green (www.equip.org/product/welcome-to-the-orthodox-church-cs/)
Here is what Hank says,
Whether Joseph was a widower who had children by a previous marriage and therefore the sons and daughters referred to in Scripture were step children, or the children referenced in the sacred text were the children of Joseph’s brother Cleopas, who died and left them in the care of Joseph, I cannot say with certainty. What can be said with a great deal of confidence is that if Mary and Joseph had had other biological children, Jesus, in concert with Mosaic Law, would have commended His sacred Mother into their care. Instead, as Mary stood by the Cross, the Son of the promise entrusted the ever-Virgin Mary to the care of His beloved disciple John-“and from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” (p. 94, Truth Matters Life Matters More)
Blessings
False teaching
Teaching, preserved by the Ancient Church, from The Apostles.
Those who deny the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God are the ones guilty of false teaching.
Not calling it false, but man that sucks for Jospeh. He was in a sexless marriage raising a child that isn’t his…kinda like a lot of men today.
Great how you brought a decent argument and sources to support your claims rather just regurgitating the vile crap you’ve been spoon-fed 😂😂😂.
Put yourself in Joseph’s shoes
After all the Devine intervention of angels in his dreams and reality,
Then his wife to be is pregnant with GOD incarnate, and gives birth to the savior of humanity, I could never disrespect her or GOD in any way like that.
so sad to see this, wow
So now the possibility of that word not meaning literal brother in some contexts leads you to conclude that it's speaking about cousins?? What reason do you have to come to this conclusion outside of orthodox doctrine? This is where denial of Sola Scritpura leads you I suppose. I pray God returns you to truth on this matters
Hank addresses the exegesis issues related to perpetual virginity in Truth Matters Life Matters More > www.equip.org/product/truth-matters-life-matters-more/
@@BibleAnswerMan I've seen it. Terrible exegesis for the purpose of defending orthodox doctrine.
@@BibleAnswerMan You mean I have to buy a book to understand the exegesis behind this perpetual virginity? I wonder does this book also explain the perpetual virginity of Joseph? Does it explain why if God wanted her to be a virgin her whole life then why not just have her not be married? Joseph when he chose Mary as his wife had no idea she would be mother to the Son of God so wouldn't God be a little deceptive in having him marry someone who he cant have intimate relations with or at least let him know ahead of time?
Hank, I don't see that the possible interpretation of brother, "could refer to something else other than brother" as a good reason to move away from the simple reading of scripture. This isn't a divisive thing for me, as long as Mary isn't seen as a intermediary or co-listener to the saints prayers. Sex in marriage doesn't make a woman less pure or less worthy of honor and it wouldn't have disqualified Mary of the honor she might have been due from Elizabeth or any godly mother for that matter is worthy of honor where it is due. Referring to Mary as the mother of God, I believe is bit of an overstatement. I don't think this is a biblical affirmation, to me it allows people to load all kinds of conclusions about Mary into it. Being used by God does not make a person worth of anything, e.g.. Judas, Pharaoh. Again, as long as you are not talking about a Quadrinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Mary - then I don't see the point, other than to mitigate the contention between different church traditions.
As an aside, I've just recently subscribed to your channel, whereas I used to listen to you on the radio a long time ago, but I notice that your slogan has changed at least three times
1. ...TRUTH MATTERS...
2. ...TRUTH AND LIFE MATTERS.....
3. ...TRUTH MATTERS, LIFE MATTERS MORE
I'm not sure the 3rd change was necessary. I get it "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath". However juxtaposing truth to life in this manner, could imply there is something incomplete about the true.
I honestly enjoy your programs and enjoy the way you explain the Scriptures and believe you hold the Scripture in a high place as the inspired word of God. The Church is Christ's, but there seems to be a movement across the western church, congregates and leaders confounding their hearts and minds according to the world by way of the influence of social media. Just like corporations that tow the line of political correctness or else their shareholders are impacted, the church is reacting the same way. If you have a suggested video or book that you've address that I'd be interested.
Hey, anyway, I still like your stuff, I greatly appreciate you attention to detail and work to make scripture clear.
Bravo Hank !
So basically you are saying Jesus had no brothers. This is wrong just wrong the language is irresponsible in the New Testament by the writer if she was a perpetual virgin.
Line upon line, precept upon precept here a little there a little
Biblical Mary was Not any queen of heaven. Queen of heaven was a pagan goddess despised by God.
Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.
Jer 44:17 But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble.
Jer 44:18 But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine."
Jer 44:19 The women also said, "And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands' permission?"
Jer 44:25 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: 'You and your wives have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled with your hands, saying, "We will surely keep our vows that we have made, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her." You will surely keep your vows and perform your vows!'
Worshipping angels???
Thus as a supplement we have our Lord Jesus Christ who according to 1 Timothy 2:5 is the only intercessor between man and God, and in Jesus’ own words in John 14:6 he is the only way that man may approach the Father in Heaven. Thus such ideas of Saintly Intercession are non-Biblical and must be taken with great caution.
----the following texts show no one else but God should be prayed to: Isaiah 42:8 I am the Lord, this is my name; I shall not give my glory to another, and my praising to graven images. (I am the Lord, that is my name; I shall not give my glory to another, nor my praises to carved idols.)
---Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
--Matthew 4:10. Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'”
----Revelation 22:8-9
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he *said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”
----Matthew 4:9-10 and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’
------Luke 4:7-8
Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’”
-----Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
----Colossians 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
>>>
Why is it that sex is such a tabu in Orthodoxy and catholicism?
God invented sex and declared it to be good. So, big deal if Mary had sex or not.
@AbrahamBarberi Why do you ask that? How is sex a taboo subject in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? Or for that matter any version of Protestantism?
This is what I meant. I have met several Catholic priests who resent celibacy, and they have expressed that they feel frustrated with the view of sex within the catholic church. In other words, sex is wrong or sinful, and celibacy is good and godly. This understanding of sex carries to the doctrine of Mary. So, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have to defend Mary from having sex with Joseph because sex is not godly. Why is it so such a big deal if Mary is perpetually a virgin or if she had sex with Joseph? God invented sex and declared it to be good under the marriage covenant, so if Mary had sex under the marriage covenant, why is it bad, and why create "a perpetual virginity doctrine"? @@BibleAnswerMan
@AbrahamBarberi Ok. Gotcha. Well, to start, Eastern Orthodoxy never took on clerical celibacy. That’s a Roman Catholic invention. The problem you raised on Roman Catholic priest struggling you raised is understood. But Easten Orthodoxy never practiced clerical celibacy.
All Christians have to defend the virgin birth as it is interwoven with the incarnation of the Son of God. The incarnation of the Son of God loses epistemic warrant without a virgin birth miracle. See www.equip.org/bible_answers/is-the-virgin-birth-miracle-or-myth-cbab/
The perpetual virginity doctrine never denies the goodness of sex and the creation mandate for the union of the one man and one woman as one flesh along with the call to be fruitful and multiply. Eastern Orthodox affirm perpetual virginity as a tradition delivered from the beginning and received to them in the present to pass on to the next generation. The idea of Jesus’ ‘brothers” and “sisters” are understood to be cousins.
How many brothers and sisters did Jesus have?
The brothers of Jesus or the adelphoi (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb") are named in the New Testament as James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, and Jude, and unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew.
AGAIN--OF THE SAME WOMB!!!!------half siblings CAN NOT be of the SAME WOMB!!!!!---unless Mary remarried after Joseph died, and HAD MORE CHILDREN!!! Which again means she did NOT remain a virgin.
AND----1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
--If Mary had no sex with Joseph, she then IS DISOBEYING GOD!!! THAT MAKES HER A SINNER!!!!!
It seems that you are wrong about many other things. What is your next religion?
What do you mean by that?
Just as Hank has been deceived by his Eastern Orthodox faith, he is now deceiving others through his radio show. Disgracing the “Bible Answer Man” moniker from the real Bible Answer Man, Dr. Walter Martin. He is so far removed from what CRI started, that he has become the very thing CRI and The Bible Answer Man was created to combat. Those who distort scripture and promote falsehoods. It’s amazing how far one can fall.
So let me get this straight, you automatically assume that a man who believed in a doctrine that is foreign to historical Christianity of which he has now by applying the rigorous research by his Christian research Institution found his premise to be false stacked against Historical Christianity (before the split in the 5th and 11th centuries) and notwithstanding decided to search deeper and in finding the True Faith; simultaneously calling out the logical inconsistencies of protestantism as him losing the Faith? Huh?
@@orthodoxrocks9644
What is foreign is this idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This idea was foreign to the Apostles and completely rejected by early church fathers. It comes from a Gnostic writing called the Protoevangelium of James. Which is the source of many Marian doctrines. CRI has done research on this subject which rejected this doctrine when CRI was not under Hank’s new found religion. He is simply apologizing for when he once applied the correct reading of the text. Rejecting the true exegesis of the passage for the his new church’s tradition.
If Walter Martin were alive to see what Hank has done to CRI, he’d probably want to slap him. This is hideous.
De un día para otro a Hank le dio Amnesia y ahora usa y defiende los mismos débiles y desgastados pasajes bíblicos y los mismos debiles y desgastados argumentos que usan los católicos para defender lo indefendible.
Años y años de estar en la verdad Para Hank ahora tirados al tacho de la basura.
Anti-Marian misogyny is founded in memories of the Greek Iconoclasm, which included some bizarre Marian ceremonies such as offering cakes to the Theotokos by obscure cults.
The bible tell us the "brothers" of Jesus are the children of another woman named Mary!
When you take into account the gospels recording of the crucifixion we see there are three Mary's. One is Jesus's mother, the other is the wife of Clopas, and the other is Mary Magdalene. Both Mark and Matthew identify this other Mary as the mother of James and Joses, which happens to be the wife of Clopas according to John. So James and Joses the "brothers" of Jesus in Mark 6:3-4 is not of the same Mary the mother of Jesus. John goes on to say that this other Mary the wife of Clopas, is the "sister" of Mary. Of course John is using the greek word adelphe here, but Hank demonstrated and other scholars have shown that this word was not exclusively used for blood sister, but was used interchangeably for cousin or a close relative. It appears John is referring to this other Mary as a close relative, because it is highly unlikely the parents of Mary would have named both their daughters Mary. Further Eusebius, in his Church History relates that this Clopas was actually a brother of Joseph, thus these children were literally the cousins of Jesus.
Further we see Jesus entrust his mother to John, this strongly indicates that Mary did not have any other children. If she did it would not make any sense that Jesus would give his mother to one of his disciples instead.
Lastly, I see in the comments many who do not understand the significance of the perpetual virginity of Mary and why it matters. Simply put because truth matters. If anyone is open to more on this subject there is a good book called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary by Dr Brant Pitre. God bless everyone.
Great video, Hank.
Hank - you’ve gone all Roman Catholic?!!
Undoubtedly Mary is to be revered, respected and admired. But you are muddying the waters here and detracting from scripture - certainly you’re reading a lot into it that isn’t there I’m afraid.
Would you please debate this with Mr James White - I understand his Greek is pretty good.
All my life I was brought up RC.
One day I realised they’d been promoting Mary almost/as deity - separate statues and masses were offered up - the rosary etc
I cannot imagine Mary’s joy, awe, heartbreak, sorrow and pain - I cannot fathom it. I cannot understand it. Mary must have been an amazing human being to have been chosen to be the handmaiden of God. Undoubtedly. Without question.
But why rattle on about perpetual virginity?! Why?!
This is the most disappointing video I have ever seen.
Semiramis worship has infiltrated the church :(
Brendan, James White preaches another Gospel! Mary did not have other biological children as James White falsely teaches.
Mary is the foretold woman in Genesis at enmity with satan, she who was saluted by the Archangel Gabriel as being full of grace, even before baptism which removes sin, she whom all generations shall call blessed. Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 what utter guff. Honestly!
It’s all about Jesus.
It’s only about Jesus.
Anything and everything else is a distraction.
Stay focussed.
@@brendanfox8945 Yes, stay focused, for without Mary's free willed consent, there is no Man/God to redeem us! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 I appreciate the sentiment. Take care.
Mother of god? :(
Is not the identity of the Child of Mary? Deity incarnate? Was Jesus not God but a creation of God? Was Jesus neither really God nor human? God entered into this world through the virgin’s womb. Mary is the virgin through whom God came to us. Mary is the God-bearer (Theotokos). As such, she is the Mother of God.
It is a sad day when Idolatry has been redefined by no less than the 'Bible Answer Man'. Hank please get back to Scripture. Mary the woman God chose to be Jesus earthly mother, never remained a virgin
Lina, even many Protestant reformers taught Mary remained a virgin after having Jesus! No where does Holy Scripture teach that the Mother of God had other biological children! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Scripture should be the basis for any teaching among believers. It carries greater weight than what *any* of the reformers may hv concluded.
7 'And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the commands of men.’ Isa. 29:13.
8 “Forsaking the command of Elohim, you hold fast the tradition of men.”
9 And He said to them, “Well do you set aside the command of Elohim, in order to guard your tradition.
Mark 7 - -
@@linak7155 I totally agree! Yet, Holy Scripture never teaches Mary had other biological children other than Jesus! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@linak7155
Burn your so call bible is a fake.
Mary wasn’t even Married if you paid close attention to the scripture. She was virgin before And after.
Rise up, EXPOSE the shepherd of hermes
Hank, this is probably the most stupidest thing I’ve ever heard from you. At best you would remain in uncertainty on the subject of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Instead, you actually make a doctrine out of it and defend it on a “could’ve been”.
Is this how you exegete Scripture? What about other subject matters? Do you take the same approach? Wouldn’t be surprised.
@SlavicUA Why wouldn't perpetual virginity be an exegetical option? Have you read The Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Jerome? Also check out this Hank Unplugged with Natahan Jacobs > www.equip.org/hank-unplugged-podcast-and-shorts/misunderstanding-faith-works-and-mary-the-mother-of-god-with-nathan-jacobs/ Not sensing you will change you mind, but still give these discussions on perpetual virginity thoughtful consideration.
@@BibleAnswerMan No I haven’t read Jerome. But I also know that the early church fathers believed many things the apostles of Jesus Christ did not. If the text does not explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin until her death, then why make a doctrine out of it? I understand that it can be your opinion, and that’s okay. I just don’t agree with making a doctrine out of it.