And before anyone notes it. Yes, I know I got the detail about the number of Pokemon movies wrong. It's truly awful to be nerdy AND incorrect about "nerdom". ;-)

Protestants minimizing of typology is unfortunate because it means they do not fully appreciate how the old testament preempts and is fulfilled by the new testament.

Even the Reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity

Hi Trent you have been instrumental in my changing religious beliefs and I owe a great debt to you. I’m not catholic but I might be soon we will have to see.

I’m further convinced by Steve’s arguments here that a magisterial authority is required. “Scripture alone” but only if you know 4 languages and are a professional linguistics scholar. I’m a machinist, sir. I need to live this faith not spend my life re-theologizing it my entire life. Cheers to both of you gentlemen, very well debated.

In talking about Luther and Zwingli he says they were both Sola scriptura and "they wanted people to follow scripture, even if they were wrong." Problem with that is, yes, they were both Sola scriptura, but both of them, and more, vehemently denied other people, even other protestants, that didn't agree with them, even though both, and other protestants, were Sola scriptura..take a look at some of the comments that were made at other protestants that didn't agree with them, they even killed them,, even though they were both Sola scriptura..just not the version they thought was correct, or their interpretation..thats the problem with Sola scriptura and not having the Magisterium to make correct and Divinely inspired interpretations. It's illogical to say, follow scripture to different people and each one of them have different interpretations..their can only be one truth..Sola scriptura isn't what all protestants have in common, even if it's grounded in that "belief"..it's actually primacy of conscience, problem is, there is nobody to tell you what the truth is, in order to use that conscience for the best..everybody is their own interpreter.

God Bless you, Trent Horn

This is mostly a Sola Scriptura refutation. The One, Holy, Apostolic and Universal Church has never taught nor have Christians ever believed (until the protestant deformation) that all inerrant God Breathed Theological Truth is contained solely within scripture alone. Or that scripture alone is the only infallible authority. These are errors brought about by the revolt. The Blessed Mother, besides being the Holy, Immaculate, Ever Virgin, Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven and Earth, is a Type of the Church. She is the embodiment of the True Christian. God’s most perfect creation. The new Eve. Perfectly humble, truly Charitable, purely chaste, complete abandonment to suffering, always faithful and a perfect detachment to the world. Through her intercession, the Son, the true Bridegroom, has brought us new wine, his blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant which he poured out for us and for many so that through his eternal sacrifice we might live. “Son, behold thy Mother.” Thank you Lord, for the gift of your Holy and Immaculate Mother to guide your Church. Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women, and Blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Pray for us, most Holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

How can protestants distinguish supposed perspicuous doctrines of Christianity from man-made traditions they are simply comfortable and familiar with if scripture is their ultimate authority?

I had major questions about Marian Dogmas while entering the church. Brant Pitre Book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary is one that slapped me over the head and literally had me in tears multiple times because my protestant friends (who I no longer even hang out with sadly) really convinced me that Mary was nothing more than a fleshly vessel and Christians in the east and west were wrong for 2,000 years by asking her to pray for us. I always felt something was off about that. Great debate. I like Steve.👍Many cool Protestants out there. I was a bit SHOCKED about him not caring much for the true original cross of Jesus if it was found today. I wouldn't worship a wooden cross, but the fact that it touched God incarnate... I'd probably kiss and hug it upon sight because it will strengthen my faith in Christ even more so... just my opinion. Gloria in excelsis Deo! 🙌

I'm sure glad Trent Horn is arguing for the Catholic side.

Steve focuses more on the lack of proof for the Marian Dogmas instead of showing how they contradict scripture, he also focuses a lot on popes or saints who did not hold these teachings before they were dogmatized, neither of those topics were the topic of the debate which was “does scripture contradict the Marian Dogmas” Steve you had some very good arguments but in the future please show respect to the person you are debating and respect to your audience by staying on topic

Really enjoyed you, Trent. Tired of fundamentalists who are blind. His entire argument is fallacy of exception.

Be sure to do your 5 First Saturday devotions in reparations for offenses committed against Our Lady.

The fact that Protestants consistently misuse the term "contradict" and conflate the concept of "contradictions" (i.e. "X" =/= "non-X") with mere arguments from silence makes objections like these extraordinarily weak and feeble.

Excellent job Trent!

I am listening to Steve, and watching a slight smile on Trent's face, knowing that he already has answers for every heretical point that this well-meaning, but misinformed, non-Catholic is presenting.

Thanks guys....but I think trent and the church got it right! Well fought mr. Protestant...you put up a good fight 👏

Thank you for all you do, Trent! God’s work is not easy, and you always rise to the occasion. God bless you and your family! 🕊✝️💕

The dogma of the Assumption defined by Pope Pius XII states, "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The dogma leaves open the question of whether Mary actually died or merely transitioned to heaven while remaining alive. If it was the latter, then that better corresponds to the Catholic assertion that she was conceived without sin and remained sinless, thereby not undergoing physical death as a punishment for sin.

Trent I am relieved that you used 2 Samuel 6 verse 23!!! I've been defending Mary's perpetual virginity lately.

Much respect to Stevie. I really do respect him for doing this Debate. Ready for a 3rd debate.

Brant Pitre showed from NT alone, and writings of Eusebius, that Jesus had no known siblings. Find his video on YT. Mary wife of Clopas, the latter a brother of Joseph (spouse of the BVM), was mother of the “brothers” (cousins) of Jesus: Joseph, Judas, Simon, and James. It’s obvious in Matthew and John gospels. Adelphos is cousins in this context.

There must be some lawyer inside Trent because he’s so good at cross examination! Steve did great, but the resolution is a tough one for him to take on.

Poor Steve. It’s so hard to argue against historical Christianity but I give him credit for his efforts, It must be exhausting.

Steve was very good in this debate, but I think he lost because the truth prevails

St Johns gospel which is an affirmation of the new Creation in Christ, that starts with the same words as Genesis - In the Beginning - ends his gospel with the assignation by Christ of Mary as the New Eve at the foot of the cross. From thence, we are no longer children of Eve under the Old Creation, but Children of Mary under the New.

Oooo Trent got up early to give us a good one. 👍🏽

Jesus is the Jewish Messiah he didn't start a new religion but natural continuation of Judaism under the new covenant, his first followers were all Jews and they started this new covenant Judaism in their respective synagogues of Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Rome, Corinth, Smyrna, Carthage, with the basic tradition like tabernacle, alter, menohra, priesthood etc. intact and by first century itself they called themselves Catholic. They consider Mary as new Eve, new Gavirah, new arc of covenant, theothogos and nobody dispute over it for fourteen centuries until the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced five hundred years ago.

These types of debates are mostly pointless because it really comes down to authority and who has it. Steve's point about the Septuagint not being inspired is an interesting one and revealing. "To be deep into the bible is to cease being Catholic" . What bible sir? If translations are not scripture what about copies of scripture. We have no originals. Did your church put the bible together? You have a handed down text that has been down sized to fit Luther's whim. I don't understand what basis he or any protestant has to say Horn is wrong.

Matt's sense of humour always adds such a light touch to the debates 😊

I could never do this, my responses would sound alot like something out of My Cousin Vinny.

I wouldn’t want to debate either of these guys because they’re both so good. I will note that there is something off when Steve talks about Jesus becoming sin. I can’t explain it, but perhaps it’s the same “offness” that removes Jesus from the crucifix in Protestant churches

"The first theologian to agree with me is Apostle Paul" Steve You wish Steve. You read your beliefs into Paul's writings and it is THAT you believe in. The theologian Paul that agrees with you is the Paul you made up in your head.

Excelente debate. Parabens aos envolvidos!

The biggest thing Catholics can do if they actually want to make progress is to address 2 Corinthians 5:21. Catholics have abandoned this text to Protestants, who have turned it into their most important Justification and Imputation text. The Church Father consensus is that Jesus being "made sin" has nothing to do with Imputation, but rather taking on a fallen humanity like ours, pointing to Rom 8:3 where Paul says God sent His Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh", and even conservative Protestant translations cross reference 5v21 to 8v3. Steve Christie relied heavily on 5v21 but presumes it means Imputation because no Catholic will confront him on it. The word Imputation doesn't even appear in that verse and the Greek term Logizomai never means Impute. Catholics just don't want to take the battle where it needs to go, and Protestants excitedly love this so that their own "interpretation" never has to be questioned.

Steve was throwing everyting he has in opening statement

Steve seems like a cool guy. Respect to him for debating Trent.

I love Trent's debating

I have never enjoyed structured debates about anything to do with God or the faith, because they are an artificial way of searching for the truth. As a lawyer, I am very familiar with the principle of adversarial trials, but I am also aware that it is only a way of finding something approximating to the truth. It rarely finds the absolute truth. The only outcome of debates is that most listeners go away holding onto the same prejudices that they came with.

Steve's rebuttal only consisted mostly of him saying "we of course know that did not happen" or some variation of that claim. You cannot debate by just making counter claims. You cannot brush off an opponent's argument. You have to show the evidence to the contrary

Man, this guy was a really good opponent for Trent! And he brought up good points that even I myself have thought about and have questioned in my spiritual journey. I was reluctant for a very long time to embrace Mama Mary for many of these arguments. So far I’m in 15 minutes into this video, and I’m impressed. Let’s see what Trent said. But I know he’s going to teach me and get me to understand this dogma finally!

Good debate. Both parties stuck to the topic and did not attack one another personally. It is always nice to see a lively debate such as this one. Still . . . Trent won. :-)

Mr. Christie seems to commit the division fallacy. If he preaches a sermon to his congregation, it doesn't mean that he talked to each audience member.

evangelicals and other Christians interpret worship as singing praises and very long exhortation of their pastors on a Bible verse taken out of context.. the primary point is that these Christians follow their own interpretation of the scriptures... on the Marian dogmas as unbiblical? why would i believe people like steve? i'd rather put my faith on 2000 year historical, apostolic Catholic Church!!!

Trent Horn is good. Hope all the Catholic Faith Defender in the Philippines be like you. 👏👏

The EO hold the same view on Mary living a sinless life, and I think has a better defense since we hold to a different view of original sin and salvation. Adam brought death to the world. Mary could live a sinless life, die and still need a savior because she is not life of herself like Christ is, she would remain dead in the place of the dead. Christ dying brought life to death and, by doing so, destroyed death. This also doesn't require an additional dogma of the immaculate conception for Mary to live a sinless life, which brings more problems.

Always learn a lot from Trent. Often Sola Scriptura is associated to all protestant denominations. However, John Wesley's "quadrilateral" indicates that scripture, tradition, experience, and reason are all legitimate sources informing Christians. What does Trent think about Wesley's quadrilateral?

Trent, thanks for quoting The Book of Mormon. Talking about pre-redeeming children is a teaching in The Book of Mormon.

I am currently a non-denominational Christian. The marian dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is for me one of the few problems I have to accepting Roman Catholicism. To be specific, I believe it is mentioned in the proto-gospel of James, which is dated to around 180AD. What I need is some kind of evidence or even proof that shows that the Early Church believed in her perpetual virginity even prior to that book.

Hail Mary, our Ark of the New Covenant. When you know how the Israelites honored the original Ark with song/dance/music, you understand how Catholics/EO honor her..no we do not worship her just as the Israelites did not worship the Ark. It was prophesied that the Shekinah which was present over the original Ark would return with the New Ark, this occurred when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Our Lady.

Steve’s worst argument, not use “brothers” because it can mean “relatives” but use “sisters” because although it can mean “female relatives” it was not used that way in the Bible, which follows families through men, not women. Also his claim about Jesus having “younger sisters” and no logical explanation about how he arrived to “younger”

In John 19:25 we read about Mary’s “sister” (adelpha) named Mary too. Is the word “adelpha” (sister in Greek) always connote biological or blood relationship?? How likely is it for Jewish moms to name their kids the same name? “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's SISTER, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene” Jn 19:25

1:18:00 that’s interesting, because the immaculate conception and, thereby, the assumption seem like the most obvious/reasonable Marian dogmas for me

Good debate. The Bible is way too vague on this topic in my opinion, so I have to agree with Trent. If Joseph fathered other children, why aren't they in his genealogies in Matthew and Luke? When he rose in the morning and took his wife or whatever, why doesn't it say they had 6 more children and their names are:... We only get that save James and Joseph from those in the synagogue who were trying to delegitimize Jesus. Not a great source.

Perpetual Virginity Dogma: Eastern Orthodox: Aeiparthenos, Ever Virgin. Catholic Church: Semper Virginem, ante partum, in partu et post partum. Protestants: Lutheran, Reform, Anglican accept, some other reject. As I mentioned before, dogma (official teaching of the church) is not merely about historical fact or cultural tradition. It should be about Christian sanctification value in every aspects of their life... Jesus teach monogamous marriage, and pursuing higher value of being eunuch for the sake of God and leaving family relationship to be His disciple... Paul also preach about to remain in the condition (married or single) for the sake of God and avoid "oppresion in the flesh" (avoiding marriage)... I don't think the dogma (official teaching) is unbiblical

12:20:30 I feel like, maybe, there could be an argument, against Steve’s point here, for the point that it’s possible that there are sins which Adam and Eve could have committed which weren’t sins in the strictest sense due to a lack of knowledge of good and evil which could be applied to young children. I mean it’s well established that one isn’t, in the church’s view, held responsible for sin prior to their knowledge of what is and isn’t sin which was, ostensibly, handed down from Adam and Eve from their having eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

What I've seen with every protestant or evangelicals. Is that they can jump from subject to another subject alot!!!! Everyone keep that in mind.

Mary is Queen of heaven.

I would take exception to both Trent and Steve on the matter of St. Paul's teaching on marriage and the marital bed. Not based on any rejection of the Perpetual virginity of our Lady, but on the basis of St. Paul's admonition being written after the death of Joseph, and likewise after the application of the New Covenant. The marriage of Mary and Joseph was according to the Law of Moses, as we evident with Mary offering the sacrifice in the Temple for the ransom of the first born. To apply a New Testament law retroactively to the Old Testament law is a reach.

Steve is a good guy. He is polite and respectful.

Please check Leviticus 27:28 Leviticus 27:28 (DRA) Any thing that is devoted to the Lord, whether it be man, or beast, or field, shall not be sold, neither may it be redeemed. Whatsoever is once consecrated shall be holy of holies to the Lord. This verse close the posibility that Mary would have other child from Joseph. Leviticus 27 in entirety is the law concerning consecration or dedication; whether Man, animal or land, or house, to Yahweh. So, Jesus' brothers surely from Joseph's other wife, if not his cousins...

1:04:11 To answer his question, Jude 1:24-25 describes Christ as our Saviour if he prevents us from sinning.

I haven’t gone through this whole video yet as I haven’t had 2 hours to sit and watch it so the following might have come up. The thing I question is this: Here we are some 2000 after Jesus was on earth, founded His Church, sent His apostles to teach, with nary a word about writing things down. The apostles went different directions all with the same teachings of Jesus, then their disciples took over with the exact same teachings. First mention of Mary’s perpetual virginity, I believe, was the Protoevangelium of James around 120 AD. The Church continued to teach this BEFORE the bible was compiled. The ECF’s like Origin, Athanasius, Jerome, etc., taught the same thing. Jerome even translated the bible from Greek into Latin. Are Protestants going to tell me that these ECF’s were ignorant dolts who didn’t know Greek? Were the writers of the gospels knowledgeable of Greek literature, correct usage of every single word, grammar tenses, sentence structure, verb usage, punctuation, different word meanings, etc., etc., and more of same? The ECF's were not aware that they had to know that before they translated the bible? After the bible was compiled in 382 AD BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, are Protestants going to tell me again, that those bishops were ignorant of what they were canonizing and claiming the bible was God’s word to humanity? If the bishops got it wrong, that who’s to say they didn’t get other things about bible wrong. So then we have problems, dude. The whole bible must then be thrown away and let modern Protestantism get it correct with their modern knowledge of ancient Greek, down to the exact meaning of every single word usage, verb, etc., etc., but who is going to make the final decision as to the “truths” of scripture? Some of the other ECF’s like Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo 1, etc. and others wrote about Mary’s perpetual virginity and they all had a bible but nooooo, I guess they were too stupid, according to Protestants, to understand scripture correctly. Heck even the hero of Protestantism, Luther, had the same beliefs? Other reformers beside Luther like Calvin, Wesley, and others believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. But I guess they too were ignorant and the world had to wait centuries to get the correct interpretation of scripture. Now are Protestants going to sit here some 2000 years later and make the claim that they know an ancient language better than those ECF’s and only they have the truth? They know exactly what the writers of the Gospel meant, what they had in mind, etc., when they started writing what Jesus taught them as if these Protestants were there recording Jesus’ every word? Now they have modern technology and knowledge to know EXACTLY what Jesus taught and the writers jot down for Protestants to be able to analyze, decipher every word in Greek, and teach the world the truths of Jesus. Get real.

Steve certainly used the unbiblical term 'half brothers' a lot.

Abraham calls Sarah his half-sister as his adelphe so at least in the LXX it does not have to be full sister.

You know, Protestants are very disrespectful when referring to the Church. They have been told time and time again that the name is "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH", not the Roman Catholic Church. Roman or Latin is the largest rite of Catholicism. There are about 24 different rites: Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, etc., etc., all in communion with The Catholic Church. They all have the same beliefs and teachings. Using just the word "Roman" is disrespectful to the other churches.

Yes

Yes.

You made a good point about the Bible saying people only die once but then there are examples of people dying twice. The problem is you assume that's the same situation with Mary but in every one of those examples like Lazarus and all the people Jesus brought back to life the Bible was very clear they were exceptions. Full of grace is a far cry from saying Mary had no sin or intercourse her whole life.

I have to say... out of every Catholic/Protestant debate I've seen, Steve did the best.

Just one of the many distractions from the Gospel. The words of Christ are sufficient. Luke 27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it. Luke 1. 46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior Marys words are not even sufficient? Scripture is very clear that Jesus is the way, truth and the life the only way to the father. Mary is somehow referring to Jesus as her saviour for some alternative reason not written in scripture? Jesus is mostly the way to the father with some help from Mary that was never mentioned by Jesus in his ministry or by Paul or any New Testament writers. When scripture is taken as a whole the emphasis and message is clear. Why nullify the word of God for the sake of tradition?

Your command is my action my liege.

This heathens thank that God all mighty was going to allowed the Mother of the one that’s have been there from the beginning of time the one and only son, to be just an ordinary Woman!!!

“There’s “Pokémon: The First Movie” but it was so bad there was no sequel.” 😂😂😂😂😂😂💀 (whether factual or not, I still snorted hot tea out my nose)

I'm not well versed in the church dogma on Mariology but I guess in my simple logic if our Lord Jesus is Most Holy in His divine nature so why should the Almighty Father choose a sinful woman for His Son's mother in His human nature? Of course the Most Holy God will choose the immaculate woman to become Jesus' mother and that was Mary who was so blessed among all women for her sinless nature despite her being human and all these are ascribed to God's omnipotence. It is understandable that all protestants will refute all Catholics' dogmas otherwise they cannot attract members of their churches. And we are very thankful that many brilliant Catholic Faith apologists are now emerging to defend our dogmas against these anti- Catholic evangelists and preachers. It's imperative that their bogus teachings be exposed to save our brethren from being deceived! Thank you very much Trent for boldly and intelligently defying these anti Catholic pastors and preachers with your vast knowledge about the dogmas of the Catholic Church. God bless!

Hi Frad.Great debate but you made a very very serious mistake when you referred to the Holy Queen prayer.You said how can Jesus be the life and Mary be the life?You have misread the prayer.Read as follows.Mother of mercy means mother of Jesus who is mercy.Then proceed.Mother of our life refers back to Jesus,our life.Then our sweetness refers to Jesus,our sweetness.Finally our hope refers to Jesus.You have assumed the epithets refer to Mary.They do not,they refer to Jesus.PS Frad when you wore a beard you were the spitting image of George V!

The Protestant reformers aspect is actually hilarious & pretty telling..but of course their beliefs are mostly ignored except when helpful for Protesting doctrine which is pretty rare in the modern Protest minus the solas. There is a lot more to be said on Mariology & of course holy tradition/sacred scripture along w/ it

How on earth do they manage to say "Roman Catholicism" like a slur

Funny how Steve has to add to the Bible to make his point, all died meaning spiritual dead, says where? Enoch and Elijah are alive at least spiritually and probably physically.

Steve wouldn't kneel before the VERY cross Jesus died on? But I bet he has kneeled before a loved one's tombstone.

My understanding of the Marian Dogmas is (1) immaculately conceived (2) lived a sinless life (3) Queen of Heaven (4) should be the recipient of our requests which aren't transmitted via technology or face to face communication( English speakers of the world create a word for that!) (5) avoided death by being raised up into heaven by God. I was shocked to hear you say the bodily assumption is the hardest Marian Dogma to believe. That is the only one which is slightly plausible. I really believe Jesus may have cut His earthly mother a break by having her translated like Moses, Enoch, Enoch's whole city, Elijah, John the Beloved, and the 3 Nephites.

I can tell trent raised the heat!!!

On Immaculate Conception Dogma: Eastern Orthodox view: Ancestral Sin is not guilt transfer, not a real sin, rather a fallen nature. Image of God is not destroyed, so man can choose to do good. This view is not semi pelagian or pelagian, because Image of God is not from the nature. It's God special gift only to human. Agustinian view (Protestants) Original sin is sin transfered from Adam and Eve to all mankind. Man cannot do good, can only sin. Fallen nature equal to sinful nature. All human being born with sins of their parents or ancestors. All men are born corrupt and destroyed (total depravity). Catholic View: Original sin is not real sin or guilt transfered. Rather that man lost Innitial Sanctification Grace. Image of God is weaken, but not destroyed or corrupt totally like protestant view (total depravity). Catholic reject total depravity. So, immaculate conception is simply God bestowed innitial sanctification grace upon Mary at the time of her existence (conception). Biblical foundation: Gen 3:15, Judges 16:17, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:5 (especially this verse). Catholic Church condemn the view that human nature is subject to death and degradation from the beginning of creation. The view that Adam and Eve would eventually die although they did not eat the forbidden fruit is considered heretical. However... Immaculate Conception is not overruling the curse upon Mary's human nature. Mary has many titles in eastern christianity such as: Panagia (All Holy, Entirely Holy), Achrantos (Spotless, Immaculate). The east rejects Agustinian and Protestant view on transferred guilt. The east sees Immaculate Conception Dogma as superfluos and suspects Agustinian influence, or semi Agustinian in this matter. Protestant insist it's based on Paul texts. But Paul view on original sin is not about transfered guilt, but rather on nature solidarity. Jews perspective which Jesus countered was diffabled men is the product of sinning parents: John 9:2-3 (WEB) His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “This man didn’t sin, nor did his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. In 7th century a monastery in Byzantine start celebrating the conception of theotokos in the womb of st. Anne. The celebration was soon put into Liturgical Calendar. This tradition was brought to west, and came to england in 9th century. At first it raised the question why celebrating fallen being? Should it be proper that the church celebrate only the conception of Jesus, since he is the only perfect being from the day of his conception? (Feast of Annunciation). The east said that they celebrate the opening of the barren womb of st. Anne. But, why celebrate something based on aphocrypal source? Why not celebrate the conception of John the Baptist, the opening of Elizabeth's barren womb? So, the west (catholic) contemplated on this matter. This dogma was revealed gradually and with the Franciscan John Dun Scotus view on dual nature of Christ, the matter was settled. Protestant doctrine is developing and changing too, but protestants tend to reject catholic doctrine gradual development. Dual nature Christ dogma was decreed on several councils, but the questions remain hot debate until the philosophical era of Aquinas and Dun Scotus. This also revolutionized the view/theology of humanity and human nature. This not only applied to Christ, but also to Mary and all human being. Steve perspective is isolated on Marian dogma, and based on bible, especially Paul's epistles. While it's okey under sola scriptura perspective, it won't reconcile or satisfy the christian unity. Marian dogma isn't only about Mary. Likewise Christology is not merely about Christ. It has something to do with the church as entirety. Mary's Immaculate Conception is not about Mary's special role on Redemption Drama. It's also about the role of Holy Spirit, sanctification, and sacrament. The immaculate conception dogma is for me personally, the evidence of the wholeness of truth in Catholic Church.

Jesus has a divine sinless nature and a human nature, but Mary has a human nature and a sinful nature. So Mary has 2 natures? And what is a "sinful nature" taken in separation from a human nature? I think Steve got confused here.

I like the thumbnail

1:06 not everything has been handed down to us... So we just make it up? reasoning for example: All knitters have arthitis. Jenny has arthritis, therefore Jenny is a knitter. Just make that up!!!

Trance analogy of Mary being without sin as Jesus was without sin can be seen in the fact of Jesus who was without sin was able to die and have Nels pierce through his hands. Doesn't he know that Jesus died on the cross because he took the sins of the whole world on him? He who knew no sin became sin…

Not only there was a lot of Pokemon Movies after the first one, the first one was excelent.

Yes!

Is anyone going to mention that we should not add to the word of God? Extra biblical stuff is adding to it...? When was the canon closed and who closed it? Every word of God is inspired, so why would we not trust it? Above other writings.

With the Marian dogmas I recently been thinking about it referring to her and Joseph not having kids. If God told you that you were going to be the mother and earthly father of him incarnation of the flesh, how could you like a normal life? This is God's divinity physical involved with your life. But also, I think we are so sex oriented that it's impossible to believe that two people would chose to be chase. Especially to protestant who think it's weird that nuns and priest take a vowel of chastity for their position. And final thought was sometimes I thing the anti-Mary postion can be a little sexist. Since if they are to preach they rarely do so on women. They admire the men in the Bible the most. And Mary is only a vessel nothing more, it's not the mother of God in flesh. Just a mere little vessel. Which I just find the argument so disrespectful. Like Mary was not some normal woman, like us. It was prophecy in the beginning and established in the stars, she was made with a particular purpose and this reason to be God-bearer. This Mary is just a vessle also put troubling idea in girls thinking if they are sinless enough the could be used as Mary. I remember hear things like this in youth groups. Idk.

Mr Chrostie keeps making the point throughout this debate that adelphei can only mean either a biological sister or a sister in the faith, and that Scripture never says otherwise, but this is false. John 19:25 speaks of Mary the mother of Jesus and her sister Mary the wife of Clopas. How likely is it that two sisters would have the same name? Mary of Clopas was a relative of Mary.

Jesus is referred to as a pre emptive savior in Revelation "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world "

There aren't exceptions to all men dying once. When Jesus and Elijah raised people like Lazarus and the widows son, they were raised to a mortal state. It was undoing that one death so they would need to die once again. The false doctrine denounced by the truth of dying once is reincarnation. Moses, Elijah, etc were changed. Their deaths happened instantaneously when they lost the problem of being mortal or will happen instantaneously before Final Judgement.

Prince starts out saying let's stick to scripture. Then he goes off into extra biblical resources. And try to confuse you with using obscured passages from the Old Testament to prove his point on the word until. The contacts tells us that the word until meant end of an event. End of Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. In the very next chapter Matthew talks of the magi's following the star until it rested above the place where Jesus was born. The magi no longer fall off the star after that. He also try to confuse you with definitions of words. Like brothers can mean half brothers and he gives an example of some rulers of that day. But fails to mention the fact that people did not know that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. So essentially James Joseph Simon and Jude were half brothers of Jesus. Having a different father but same mother. Trent is not interested in truth he is only interested in debating. And uses this style does it really say that . Trying to bring up objections to someone's point of view. But didn't Satan do the same thing to Adam and Eve? Did god really say that

39:00

I don't understand this "argument by exception" argument. If you claim "all people are x", then any person that is not x disproves that claim. In what way is that a logical fallacy? The exception fallacy is the inverse, using a single example to claim a trait for all...

Wouldn't you think at some point this guy would wonder, "is being on the opposite side of our Lord's mother a good idea?"

No, those dogmas do not "contradict Scripture". Nor would it matter in the slightest if they did; as the NT contradicts the OT, and each Testament contradicts itself. There is no *Biblical* basis for supposing that total freedom from all contradiction within its parts or of them is necessary for the Bible: the notion that there is a such a necessity, is an unexamined assumption from outside the Bible that has been projected onto it. It is high time for this unexamined assumption to be tested and scrutinised, rather than tamely assented to as though it were a self-evident truth. Even on the supposition - an invalid one; but let us, for the sake of argument, suppose it to be valid -.that the "Marian dogmas" (a bad name for them, BTW) do "contradict Scripture", what if they do ? Exactly the same objection is made, by some Protestants or quasi-Protestants, against dogmas that many or most Protestants agree with Catholicism in holding as true: such as that of the Most Holy Trinity, or that of the immortality of the human soul, or that of eternal punishment, or that of original sin, or that of the necessity of Baptism. If Protestants, all reading the very same Bibles, cannot agree among themselves that those are all truths that do not "contradict Scripture" - why should Catholics be impressed by the fact that Protestants object that some dogmas held by Catholicism, but not by all Protestants, "contradict Scripture" ? All doctrinal truth is not to be found in Scripture alone; it is all to be found in Christ, but it is not all to be found in the Bible. Some people gaze "too fixedly" at Scripture, so that they miss, not only Christ to Whom it witnesses, but also the consequences of Who & What He is. The Pharisees made that mistake, and the result was, that they "killed and crucified" the Messiah. God cannot be limited to a set of books, no matter how fully "God-breathed", just as God could not be limited to the Ark of the Covenant or to the Jerusalem Temple. Protestants contradict their own doctrine that nothing is to be taught as Christian doctrine except what is in the Bible or can be derived therefrom, when they accept as "God-breathed" Holy Scripture the 27 named books of the New Testament, complete with all their parts; for there is no *Biblical* foundation for any such Christian books to be reckoned as Holy Scripture. The very people who say that Catholicism holds as true dogmas that "contradict Scripture", themselves contradict their own doctrine,, when they require Christians to hold as true several doctrines about those 27 books for which there is no foundation in the Bible. Protestants should decide among themselves what they believe God has revealed as needing to be believed, before they think of criticising Catholicism for not believing all and only the doctrines that they believe. To alter slightly a familiar (and very relevant) Biblical saying: "Physicians, heal yourselves". It is impossible to take seriously Protestant objections that Catholicism "contradict[s] Scripture", when they cannot agree among themselves on matters of doctrine, even though these doctrines are, supposedly, derived from & based upon Scripture. The Protestant failure to agree on such matters gives the lie to the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture: and their doctrine of private judgement is a recipe for doctrinal chaos.