I had such a
huge response to the last time I did a Throwing
Down series that I've decided to make it a reoccurring feature here on
my blog! From time to time I'll bring to you different videos from different
Christian denominations and pit their religious doctrines, dogmas or beliefs
against that of the one and only Catholic Church.
In this second
installment we are going to take a look at what the Seven-Day Adventist church
believes about Mary, the mother of our Lord. It is very striking to see just
how at odds their view of Mary is, not only when compared to Catholic teaching
but, within the backdrop of Christian history. So, without further delay, let's dive
into this video and debunk some of the SDA's claims against the Blessed Virgin.
@
1:10 – “In our study today we are going
to look at what the bible has to say about Mary. We are going to be exhaustive
in our study to leave no stone unturned as we examine the biblical evidence. We
are not going to embellish the record, we are not going to add to what
Scripture says; we are simply going to take the testimony of Scripture at face
value.”
Okay, fair enough.
@
5:55 – “I would like to read a statement
also from that majestic biography of Jesus, called the ‘Desire of Ages’…”
Whoa! Just 4 minutes and 45 seconds ago, Mr. Bohr
stated that he was only going to use the Bible alone to establish his thesis
and now, all of a sudden, we have an extra-biblical resource! So the question
now is, who wrote Desire of Ages and
what kind of authority did the author have to do a biography of our Lord? Since
Mr. Bohr conveniently doesn’t say who it is, I will.
Turns out that Desire
of Ages was written in 1898 by Seventh Day Adventist founding prophetess,
Ellen G. White. Just who is she? Well, without going to in depth into the
ill-conceived Millerite
Movement and its numerous failed prophecies for
Jesus’ Second Coming, suffice it to say that the Seventh-Day
Adventist (as well as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) can easily and academically
trace its roots to William Miller and his repeated attempts of failed
prophecies. With that being said, Mrs. White made a series of her own predictions
that utterly fail to pass any muster (with my
emphasis):
“What we have seen and
heard of the pestilence [of 1849], is but the beginning of what we shall see
and hear. Soon the dead and
dying will be all around us.” (Present Truth, Sept. 1849)
“My accompanying angel said, 'Time is almost
finished. Get ready, get ready, get ready'... now time is almost finished...and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few
months” (Early
Writings, pp. 64-67)
"I was shown the company present at the
Conference. Said the angel: 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the
seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be
translated at the coming of Jesus.'" Testimonies,
Vol. 1, p. 131
"Slavery will again be revived in the Southern
States; for the spirit of slavery still lives. Therefore it will not do for
those who labor among the colored people to preach the truth as boldly and
openly as they would be free to do in other places. Even Christ clothed His
lessons in figures and parables to avoid the opposition of the Pharisees."
(Spalding
& Magan Collection, pg 21,3)
(See more of Mrs. White’s unbroken string of
failures predicting Christ’s Return here)
She also claimed – as most SDA members now believe –
that the throne of God is in the
constellation of Orion:
“Dark heavy clouds came up, and clashed against each
other. The atmosphere parted and rolled back; then we could look up through the
open space in Orion, whence came the voice of God. The holy city will come down
through that open space.”
In other words, Mr. Bohr is using the writings of an
anti-Catholic false prophetess in order to make his argument. Therefore, if Mr.
Bohr is going to use extra-biblical sources to stake his claim, then so will I
in the form of the Church Fathers and, just to make it more interesting, I’ll
only use writings that pre-date the 1863 establishment of the SDA church. In
this way I’ll be able to demonstrate just what Mary means in the scope of
Christian history and in light of the Seven-Day Adventists teachings.
@7:06 – “Now, it’s interesting to notice that the
bible does not mention anything about the birth of Mary…through Tradition we
have come to believe that the parents of Mary were called St. Anne and St.
Joachim but, that actually comes from an apocryphal work of the 2nd century
A.D. called The Nativity of Mary. So it’s not found in Scripture that her
parents were called St. Joachim and St. Anne…the bible has nothing to say about
when Mary was born, where Mary was born, to whom she was born or how she was born.
Scripture is silent about the birth of Mary…”
To begin with, why is it so “interesting” that
Scripture is silent about Mary’s birth? Is she the savior? Is she the one who
will redeem mankind? Is it also “interesting” that Scripture is silent about St.
Joseph’s birth, St. John’s birth and St. Peter’s birth (as well as the other
Apostles)? How “interesting” is it that there was no mention about St. Paul’s
birth either, I mean, after all, he only wrote like half of the New Testament!
Mr. Bohr must’ve forgotten, so I’ll remind him: the
New Testament is centered around Christ – not Mary, not the Apostles, not
Joseph, not Paul nor anybody else. What Mr. Bohr is doing here is alienating
Sacred Tradition from Sacred Scripture and, in this attempt, it seems a bit
absurd. Let me explain.
First of all, Mr. Bohr says that there is an
apocryphal work called “The Nativity of Mary” from the 2nd century. In fact
this apocryphal work is really the Protoevangelium of James (The
Gospel of James) which describes the Holy Virgin’s birth, that is, THERE IS NO
WORK SPECIFICALLY CALLED “The Nativity of Mary” from the second century A.D., per say. Mr. Bohr is using an
anti-Catholic Protestant trick, in which events of Christ’s life are duplicated
for Mary and, in this case, Mr. Bohr is inventing a “nativity” narrative for Mary in
order to evoke a sense of disbelief since no bible-only Christian has ever read
of such an event in the bible. Mr. Bohr uses this technique in order to
instantly shut down any extra-biblical reference that disagrees with the SDA
philosophy or belief system. Protestants very much like to use this technique,
of equating Mary with Jesus, against Catholics, especially since our faith
correctly believes in honoring the Holy Virgin and setting her as an examplar
of what every Christian should be like. Therefore, Catholics steeped in Marian
devotion can be easy targets for Protestants if they don’t realize that the
Church HAS NEVER equated Mary with Jesus; while the two share an eternal bond,
the Mother IS NEVER to be placed above or at the station of her Son.
Since Mr. Bohr mentioned an extra biblical work,
let’s analyze it and see if we can get a better understanding of what the early
Christians believed. The apocryphal work of the Gospel of James is dated to around
120-125 A.D. that is, 92 years after Christ’s death. The author of The Gospel
of James remains unknown, however what is certain is that this writing was
circulating among the Early Christians.
Ecumenical writer Origen of Alexandria, writing in 246 A.D., wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. In chapter 17 of his
commentary, as Origen is exegeting Matthew 13:54-56, we read the following:
“And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be
His nearest kindred, they said, “Is not His mother called Mary? And His
brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they
not all with us?” They thought, then, that He was the son
of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel
according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of
James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of
Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.”
Here, Origen is commenting on the fact that there is
a work called “The Book of James” and he also states that Jesus’ brethren came
from Joseph’s former marriage, in chapter 9 of the Gospel of James, it reads:
And
the priest said to Joseph, “You have been chosen by lot to take into your
keeping the virgin of the Lord.” But Joseph refused, saying: “I have children,
and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a
laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.”
Nowhere in the book of James, as it is found in the
Bible, is there ever any mention of Joseph having children from a former
marriage, therefore, Origen must’ve got this information from the Gospel of
James which he inadvertently calls “The Book of James.” Continuing with his
Commentary on Matthew, Origen builds a solid case for Mary’s virginity AFTER
Jesus’ birth:
“Now
those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end,
so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word… might
not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into
her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in
harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity
which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to
ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.”
Origen then goes on to mention that the James who
wrote this Gospel is “he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he
saw, ‘But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.’
This is a clear reference to James the Just, the first bishop
of Jerusalem, in Galatians 1:19
and, James is also mentioned again in Galatians 2:9
and also in Acts
12:17.
Now, the question here isn’t whether who wrote this
apocryphal work as much as the all important fact that as early as 125 A.D. the
early Christians believed – through Apostolic oral Tradition – that St. Anne
and St. Joachim were Mary’s parents. Origen is a testament to this belief since
he cross-references The Gospel of James over 120 years AFTER it was written!
Think about that: close to 3 generations of Christians knew of Mary’s parents,
how she was birthed, where she was birthed and why she was birthed; these
Christians already knew this by the mid 250’s, which basically means that
another 150 years would still have to pass before the canonization of the Bible
would occur. In other words, Mr. Bohr unwittingly gives testament to the
Traditional beliefs of the early Catholic Church! So much so that if we
continue reading Origen’s commentary, he states something very interesting
about a certain letter that would eventually be part of canonized Scripture. We
read:
“And
Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the
healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, “Jude, the servant of
Jesus Christ and the brother of James.”
Here is a clear-cut example of what Sacred Tradition
is. Origen – writing 150 years before the Letter of Jude would be in the Bible
– talks about how Jude’s epistle is “healthful” and filled with “heavenly
grace.” This is no doubt excellent evidence of Origen’s legitimacy, in both
understanding what would eventually become Sacred Scripture and in his
knowledge of Sacred Tradition within the early Catholic Church! To that end, it
behooves us to recognize and consider such early testimonial from the early
Church Fathers.
Therefore, history makes an undeniable claim here
against Mr. Bohr's brand of bible-alone Christianity. Ultimately we must ask ourselves
the following questions: Should we take the words of Origen, who lived and
wrote 200 years after Christ or, that of Mr. Bohr, who’s church was invented less
than 150 years ago? Do we acknowledge that Origen may have had a better view of
what the first Christians believed in or, do we throw away over 1,760 years of
Tradition and Teaching in order to establish the Seven Day Adventist’s 28 points of
faith in the year 1863? Do we take full stock of the writings of man who
was part of the Catholic Church in the 3rd century or, do we take stock of a
man who’s Christian church says Christ entered
His Holy Sanctuary in 1844 to begin the “second and last phase of His
ministry?” Do we take the words of Origen as the insight of a man who wrote before
the Council of Nicaea or, do we take the words of Ellen G. White as inspiration
from God, even though her prophecies/prediction in the late 19th century would seem
rather uninspired and quite stereotypical of her time?
Lastly, Mr. Bohr makes the following statement, “the
bible has nothing to say about when Mary was born, where Mary was born, to whom
she was born or how she was born.” To which I reply, the bible never says
anything about the word Trinity nor about the fact that Jesus is “of one
substance” with God the Father nor does it say anything about Jesus having two
wills (one divine and one humanly). You see these issues weren’t decided by the
bible alone, they were decided by a group of men who came together at Church
Councils to unerringly define basic Christian dogma and, unfortunately for Mr.
Bohr, his church wasn’t at any of those Councils. We will see more on this subject later.
Bonus point of truth: the bible itself NEVER claims
to be the sole source of authority for Christians!
@
10:37 – “Now a question that comes up,
very frequently, is whether Mary had children after Jesus was born – whether
Mary was a perpetual virgin…Can that be corroborated from the testimony of Holy
Scripture? Notice Luke 2:7…Matthew 1:24-25…Matthew 1:18…Psalm 69:8…
Mr. Bohr cites various passages of Scripture in
order to make the claim against Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let’s analyze these
passages and see what Scripture tells us. First up, Luke 2:7 states the
following:
“…and
she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and
laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”
In Genesis 27, we are
told of the story of Isaac’s two sons, Esau and Jacob. The story goes on to
state of how Isaac, already advanced in years and with poor eyesight, tells his
firstborn son Esau to hunt for some game and to prepare a meal for him because
he will be blessing Esau as the new head of the family. Isaac’s wife Rebekah
overhears this and sends her son Jacob to disguise himself as Esau so that he
may receive the blessing while his brother is out hunting, which he does and by
verse 37 of this chapter we see that Isaac – through a mere blessing – has made
Jacob owner of all that is his as well as made him Esau’s master. This story
demonstrates the supremacy of the firstborn, indeed as I will further illustrate,
the idea of “the firstborn” isn’t a numerical value as to who was born first, second
or last but, it is a title – a legal description, indicating the rights and
privileges of the firstborn son.
In Exodus 13:2, the Lord God says to Moses:
“Consecrate to me every firstborn that opens the
womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me.”
Here we see the primacy of the firstborn. Notice
that God Himself decreed that the firstborn is His, they are consecrated to
Him. Therefore, how much more consecrated was Mary’s firstborn son seeing that
he not only belonged to the Father but was actually part of the Father from all
eternity? In Numbers
3:12-13 we read the following:
“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among
the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that opens the womb among
the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the
firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land
of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast:
mine shall they be: I am the LORD.”
Here we see the superiority that the firstborn of
the tribe of Levi have and, naturally, the most interesting fact here is that
it was from the Levites that God chose His priests to come from; think about
that, how much more particular then is it that the firstborn sons of the
Levites were destined to be priests in order to redeem all of the Israelites
(see Num 3:40-51)?
Again we see that the Lord God has a special place for the firstborns in Deuteronomy
21:15-17, so secure is the firstborn’s legitimacy to his father’s rights
that even if the father dislikes his firstborn son he has no choice but to
acknowledge the firstborn’s rightful place! This passage reads in part:
“If a man with two wives loves one and dislikes the
other; and if both bear him sons, but the firstborn is of her whom he dislikes:
when he comes to bequeath his property to his sons he may not consider as his
firstborn the son of the wife he loves...On the contrary, he shall recognize as
his firstborn the son of her whom he dislikes, giving him a double share of
whatever he happens to own…”
Without a doubt, the term firstborn son is more than
just that, it signifies a rightful place of prestige, standing and status. While
the case can be argued that Scripture did at times elevate the secondborn son
at certain times, the point is that it is the firstborn to whom approbation is
always attributed to. Therefore, Jesus, as the “firstborn,” is thus due
everything. In Col 1:15-16 we read:
We see that St. Paul writes here and states that
Christ was the firstborn of all creation, and that EVERYTHING is His, and why
is this? Because it is His “inheritance” from the Father, EVERYTHING is due to
Christ because He was God the Father’s firstborn in title and not in term.
If we are to believe what Mr. Bohr is saying, that
the word “firstborn” signifies the literal first child born, then we must
therefore ask two things in regards to Col 1:15. First, if Christ is the
literal “firstborn” of all creation, does that mean that He was in fact created?
In which case, the entire belief in the Trinity (which the SDA’s hold to) falls
apart because if Jesus was created then we can say, much like the 4th century Arians did, that
there was a time before Jesus was not and, therefore, Christ is not eternal but
a mere creation of God the Father. This is the first roadblock in not
attributing Jesus the TITLE “firstborn” because, after all, if Jesus was “born”
then that signifies he was created from nothing. Secondly, if Mr. Bohr is
correct, and Jesus was the firstborn of God, where is God’s secondborn son, the
thirdborn son, fourthborn daughter, etc.??? If we solely attribute the word
“firstborn” to Christ, with respect to what Mr. Bohr is wrongfully telling us,
then, it only follows if Mary had a secondborn, thirdborn, forthborn, etc., so
too must God likewise have more than one Godly son.
Ironically, it is well documented that the Seven Day
Adventists were actually Anti-Trinitarian during the first 30 years of the
creation of their church! One of the early SDA leaders, Joshua V. Himes,
rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural, according to the Encyclopedia
of Religious Knowledge, Himes was quoted as saying:
“At first, they were generally Trinitarians;
subsequently they have, almost unanimously, rejected the Trinitarian doctrine
as unscriptural.”
Even the two founding members of the SDA church, Joseph Bates
and James White,
were also strict anti-Trinitarians! In his
autobiography, Joseph Bates, states the following:
“Respecting the Trinity, I concluded that it was
impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father,
was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my
father, If you can convince me [we] are one in this sense, that you are my
father, and I your son, and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I
can believe in the Trinity.”
James White’s anti-Trinitarian view was so skewed,
that he actually refers to Christ – not as God but, as an angel. Here we see
why the Jehovah’s Witnesses are so closely tied and connected with the whole
Millerite movement. White wrote Christ of the
Old Testament in 1877, in which he states (see pages 6-7):
“The work of emancipating, instructing and leading
the Hebrews was given to the One who is called an angel…And this angel Paul
calls “that spiritual Rock that followed them,” and he affirms, “That Rock was
Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). The eternal Father is never called an angel in
the Scriptures, while what angels have done is frequently ascribed to the Lord,
as they are his messengers and agents to accomplish his work.”
This is the pitfall of Protestantism; when
Christians declare themselves to have inspiration from on high and begin to
interpret Scripture and proclaim doctrine without any authority whatsoever. Moreover,
how can any other Protestant denomination claim that they are correct if they
too are claiming to read the same exact book and yet have a differing
interpretation of Scripture that they maintain comes from the inspiration of God? I mentioned the Arians a moment ago and with
good cause, since the SDA church wasn’t around to experience the Arian Heresy (neither
was ANY other Christian denomination) they fail to see that it took the Early
Catholic Church to convene a Council in 325 A.D. to do away with a heretical
teaching that was spreading throughout the early Church. As I stated before, it
took a Church Council, NOT THE BIBLE, to determine that truth. To deny this
fact is to deny Christian history itself.
Mr. Bohr goes on to mention Matthew 1:24-25 which
states:
“When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had
commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her
until she bore a son, and named him Jesus.”
Uh, oh! There it is! Proof that Joseph had sex with
Mary AFTER Jesus was born! As Mr. Bohr continues to elaborate he makes the following
statement at the 12:48 mark: “He did not have sexual relations with her until
the birth of Jesus…in other words, she was a virgin until Jesus Christ was
born.”
Let’s analyze the word “until.” In Matthew 1:25 the word, in the Greek, used here is heos (ἕως). According to Strong’s Concordance, it means “till”
or “until” In Psalm
123:2, we read the following passage:
“…so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until he shows us his mercy.”
“…so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until he shows us his mercy.”
Does this therefore mean that once God shows us His
mercy we don’t have to look up to Him anymore? How about Galatians 3:19 which
reads:
“Why then was the law? It was set because of
transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being
ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”
So, does this mean that now because of Jesus we as
Christians need not be obedient to the moral law? Psalm 110:1 reads:
“…Sit at My right hand, until your enemies are your
footstool.”
Does this therefore mean that after your enemies
have been subdued, you no longer have to be at God’s side? Matthew
28:20 also uses the word heos, in it Jesus says:
“And behold, I am with you always until the end of
the age.”
Does this mean that when this age is over, Jesus
won’t be with us? 2 Samuel 6:23 states:
“…Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until
the day of her death.”
This therefore must mean that Michal had children
AFTER she died, right?
Why do all of these passages have to be read like
this? Because Mr. Bohr has interpreted the word until to mean “up to a certain
point” or “terminated at a certain point.” However, it is plain to see that
Scripture uses the word until not as “up to a certain point” but, it could also
mean “up to a certain point, continuously.” It is only by using this definition
that any of these cited Scripture passages make any sense. Therefore I would
suggest that, in analyzing Matthew 1:24-25, instead of reading it as “Joseph didn’t
have sex with Mary only up to the point before Jesus was born” we could easily imply that this means
“Joseph had no relations, ever, with Mary, even after the birth of Jesus.” Now,
that might sound a bit off to the modern reader – that a married couple
wouldn’t have sex - but, as I will shortly demonstrate, Scripture proves this
hypothesis entirely plausible but first, let’s revisit the Gospel of James to
lay down some ground work.
To begin with, in the Protoevangelium of James
(The Gospel of James) which Mr. Bohr incorrectly called the “nativity” of Mary,
we see that the early Christians believed that Mary was a consecrated virgin.
Her parents, Joachim and Anne, were having difficulties bearing a child and, in
the first chapter, Joachim goes to Israel and checks the registers and notes
that all of the righteous men of Israel have “raised up seed in Israel.” Distraught, he
goes into the desert to fast for 40 days and 40 nights. In the 3rd & 4th
chapters, Anne goes into a garden to pray and lament about her barren womb when
an angel appears to her and tells her she will bear a child, to which Anne
says:
“As the Lord my God lives, if I
beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God; and it shall minister to
Him in holy things
all the days of its life…”
In other words, we see that St. Anne promise to have
her child be a “minister” of God. In Chapter 7, when Mary is 2 years old, she
is taken to the temple by her parents in order to “pay the vow that
we have vowed,” however, they decided to wait one more year and by the
time she is 3 years old, Mary is received into the temple and is part of temple
life until her early adolescence. Is this a weird way of paying service to the
Lord? Hardly, Scripture gives us a couple of instances that demonstrate that
women were set up for such a role.
Exodus
38:8 and 1
Samuel 2:22 speak of women who serve at the entrance of the tabernacle. Had
Martin Luther not unilaterally done away with the Second book of Maccabees, chapter 3, verses 19
through 20 read as follows:
“Women, girt with sackcloth below their breasts, abound
in the streets, and the virgins that were kept in ran, some to the gates, and
some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all, holding their
hands toward heaven, made supplication.”
Let’s see what Numbers chapter 30
has to say in regards of Mary’s virginal disposition. In Numbers 30:4-6 Moses
is instructing the tribes of Israel and he tells them:
When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s
house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, if her father
learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to
her about it, then any vow or pledge she has made remains valid. But if on the
day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow
or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the LORD releases her
from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval.
So what we have here is that if a maiden, that is, a
virgin, while living in her father’s house, is bound to any oath to God she has
made so long as her father doesn’t disapprove. In Mary’s case, her father and
mother had, presumably, vowed her to the LORD, so this case doesn’t apply to
Mary, however, the next three verses that pertain to Mary and her husband
Joseph. In verses 7-9, we read:
If she marries while under a vow or under a rash
pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says
nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she has made remains
valid. But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his
disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which
she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it.
Now, if we closely analyze this Jewish teaching it
is very easy to see that, if Mary was a consecrated virgin, which was not at
all uncommon, and she was betrothed to Joseph (who knew of her vow yet did not
say anything against it) then the conclusion is a simple one: Both Mary and
Joseph, by Mary’s vow to serve the Lord, were both celibates.
Furthermore, Scripture undoubtedly supports this
premise! Let us now examine several passages from Luke, chapter 1, and further
flesh out this theory. Of particular interest are verses 26-38 in which the
angel Gabriel tells Mary she will bear the Messiah, all 18 verses read as
follows:
26 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent
from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a
man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And coming to her, he said, "Hail,
favored one! The Lord is with you." 29 But she was greatly troubled at what was
said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 Then the angel said
to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him
Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the
Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule over
the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 But
Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a
man?" 35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will
come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore
the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold,
Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is
the sixth month for her who was called barren; 37 for nothing will be
impossible for God." 38 Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the
Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed
from her.
There is something rather peculiar here and, if you
simply read these lines of Scripture without knowing of Mary’s vestal promise,
you’re going to absolutely miss it. And what is that exactly? Well, if Mary is
betrothed to Joseph, that is, Mary is going to marry Joseph, why is she so
surprised when she is told that they are going to have a child in verse 34?
After all, in those days it was almost the responsibility of the woman to have
a child, so why is it so strange that Mary – who’s getting married soon – deems
the notion of her having a child so bizarre? Was it really so outlandish for
Gabriel to suggest to an engaged young woman that she and her husband would have a child? Did Mary not know that married men and women, more often than
naught, tend to have children? Did Mary forget Psalm 127:3,
which states that children are a blessing from God? Indeed, her reaction is one
of total ignorance! Do you really think that Mary was so dumb as to not of
already have known that as a married woman she have to rear children? This
would be the modern day equivalent of the mother-of-the-bride telling her
daughter on her wedding day that she can’t wait to be a grandmother and the
bride being totally shocked that her marriage would bear any children! This is
precisely what Mary is saying in verse 34 and, when carefully scrutinized, this
one verse is incompatible with the hypothesis Mr. Bohr has put forward.
The only answer that makes perfect logical and
rational sense is that Mary DIDN’T INTEND ON HAVING CHILDREN, EVER. It is only
under that presumption that Mary’s curious inquiry can be reconciled; it is
only in this light that Mary’s words have any meaning! Far too often have many
of us – as Mr. Bohr has already demonstrated - read this passage and very
superficially take Mary’s words in verse 34 to mean the following: “it is
impossible for me to have a child since I am now, at this moment, a virgin.”
But, the correct way to read this passage would be: “I don’t know what you
could possibly be talking about Gabriel! I have sworn an oath to the LORD and
my fiancé knows of it and he has chosen not to suspend it! What? Are you
calling me a common tramp?” Ok, so I was being a little facetious but, the fact
remains the same, only by Mary being vowed to virginity and with Joseph’s
agreement, per Mosaic Law, can any of this bear sound truthfulness.
To sum up: Mary was a consecrated virgin who made a
vow of celibate service which her husband didn’t disapprove of, an angel tells
her she will give birth, this absolutely astounds her because she has kept her
oath AND her future husband – who more than likely knows of her pledge – has
not dissolved her vow. Joseph hears that she is with child and, since he is a
righteous and just man who will not go against the law of Moses (Num.
30:15), he sets out to break their engagement (Mt
1:19) but not before an angel of the Lord appears to him and tells him that
it is God’s will for her to conceive and give birth to the Messiah (Mt.
1:20-21). After Joseph’s heart is revealed to the truth he then takes her
home to live together…where he continues to hold Mary fast to her vow.
Hence, the idea that Mary remained a virgin is not
too far-fetched. Additionally, how much more does Mary’s resolve as the perfect
Christian become now that we know that it was through her will and her
steadfast faith in God that she was able to remain a virgin and not, as Mr. Bohr
states at the 12:16 mark, that Mary was by “the miracle of God” a perpetual
virgin? Indeed, nowhere in Scripture does it even allude to God supernaturally
keeping Mary a virgin, therefore, that act of the flesh was left entirely up to
her. As St. Augustine wrote in 401 A.D. in his treatise Holy Virginity (4:4):
“…she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet
she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a
heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of
command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service.”
Now, let’s tackle Psalm 69:8.
Mr. Bohr says at the 13:44 mark that Psalm 69 is a
“Messianic prophecy” and proceeds to quote a couple of verses to illustrate it
as such. He then quotes verse 8 in which he states (at the 14:10 mark) that in
this particular verse “the Messiah is speaking, Jesus is speaking and he says:”
“I
have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s children.”
The idea here is that it is Jesus saying He has
brothers and His mother had children. This is an extremely cynical twisting of
Scripture by Mr. Bohr! In saying that these words were spoken by Jesus, he
absolutely estranges the actual author of Psalms, King David, from Scripture!
What Mr. Bohr also cleverly does is quote ONE SPECIFIC passage in order to
substantiate his personal interpretation. This ruse is used far too often by
Protestants and is easily undone by simply taking into account the proceeding
and the preceding verses. If in fact “Jesus is speaking” in verse 8, was He
also speaking in verse 5? If it is Jesus “speaking” then this is what He says
in verse
5:
“O
God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.”
In other words, if “the Messiah is speaking,” that is,
“Jesus is speaking” in verse 8 then surely it was Christ speaking just 3 verses
before because, when read in its entirety, Psalm 69 continuously talks about
great lamentation and suffering and deliverance; and if it is “Jesus speaking”
in verse 5, then Christ Himself has just unhinged all of Christianity because
He just admitted that He is a sinful fool! Mr. Bohr NEVER mentions this verse,
why? Because it totally destroys his already preconceived idea that it has to
be “Jesus speaking” in order to promulgate the SDA’s false notion that Mary had
children. Therefore, it is very interesting that Mr. Bohr would use this
passage without letting us know where, when and at what parts “Jesus speaks” in
Psalm 69 and at what parts He does not. It is an absolute insult to the
intelligence to so neglect such a crucial aspect, as such, it is impossible for
Mr. Bohr to attempt to build upon the premise that Mary had children and Jesus
had brothers from Psalm 69.
This serves as a prime example as to why the
bible-alone cannot be the sole source of authority as well as the fact that by
haphazardly quoting preferred texts, anyone can derive any personal
interpretation of Scripture that they choose. Mr. Bohr must’ve forgotten 2
Peter 1:20:
“…no
prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…”
@14:36
– 16:50 – “Now you’re probably wondering,
what about…the brothers and sisters of Jesus? Well let me read that passage
it’s found in Matthew 13:55-56…Scripture says that Jesus brothers and sisters…Some
people say [that] the expression brothers and sisters is a different way of
saying cousins…Well the fact is that the Greek language has a very definite
word for cousins, it’s the word ‘anepsios.’ For example, it is used in
Colossians chapter 4 and verse 10, where we are told that Mark was the cousin
of Barnabas. So, if the Gospel writers had wanted to say that these individuals
were actually cousins of Jesus, they could’ve used the word cousin because it
existed. Allow me to read to you, once again, a statement from this classic
biography of Jesus, 'Desire of Ages'…”
Once again, we see that Mr. Bohr purposely refuses
to use the entirety of Scripture when attempting to circumvent the truth that
lies within it. What Mr. Bohr isn’t doing here is going deeper into Scripture
in order to see why certain happenings occur. If we just simply read the Bible,
we are doing just that, reading it. If we as Christians aren’t digging into the
context, history, language and genre of the books in the Bible, we might as
well as not be reading anything at all. Unfortunately, the assumption that
Jesus had biological brothers and sisters falls into this cursory reading malpractice.
Mr. Bohr states that Matthew 13:55-56, clearly
depicts Jesus’ biological siblings since the Greek word for brother is used
here and not the Greek word anepsios (ἀνεψιός)
for cousin. The exact word used here is adelphos (ἀδελφός),
which, according to Strong’s
Concordace of the Greek Lexicon means: literally or figuratively a brother.
Cross
referenced, brother need not only mean a biological brother but, persons
whom have the same national ancestor, belong to the same people, or countryman.
So, very easily seen is the fact that the word adelphos can also refer to mean kinsman
or a relative of some sort.
But, could it be that this is how Scripture intended
for us to understand it? Mr. Bohr mentions that the Greek word for cousin, anepsios,
can be found in Colossians 4:10. However, what Mr. Bohr fails to mention is
that this particular word for cousin IS ONLY
USED THIS ONE TIME IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE. Additionally, the King
James Version of Col. 4:10 reads as follows:
“Aristarchus
my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas,
(touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)…”
Now, where exactly does it say the word cousin in
this passage? Mr. Bohr proudly exclaimed, at the 16:26 mark, that “Mark was the
cousin of Barnabas.” Yet the word cousin doesn’t appear here, what we have is
the term sister’s son. Does this therefore mean that the word cousin is nowhere
to be found in the Bible other than this one and only time the word anepsios is
used by the Gospel writers? According to Mr. Bohr’s spiel, if the authors of
the Gospels had wanted to use that word – more than once – they would’ve,
right? Well then why is Elizabeth called Mary’s cousin in Luke
1:36 and then again when referring to Mary’s relatives in Luke
1:58? Interestingly enough though, the word anepsios doesn’t occur in either
of these two verses!
When we take into consideration that Matthew’s
audience were Jews who were familiar with Old Testament prophecy (since Jewish
customs were never explained in Matthew's gospel), we now have to put ourselves in the
world of those 1st century Jews. And, if we were to do that, we would find out
2 things:
1)
The Jewish converts of the 1st century did not speak Greek.
In the lead up to selecting Matthias to replace
Judas, Acts
1:19 has St. Peter stating:
“And
it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is
called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.”
The Greek word Aceldama
is used here and denotes that the Hebrews were well aware of the Greek language
in their time; the fact that the New Testament points out there were Greek
speaking Jews confirms that most of the Jews did not speak Greek. Moreover, we
see that at the time of St. Paul’s conversion/calling, Jesus speaks to St. Paul
in Hebrew even though St. Paul is well versed in Greek! In Acts
26:14, as Saul is heading to Damascus, a great light flashes causing him
and his traveling companions to fall to the ground and then we read what Jesus
tells Saul:
“…I
heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou me? “
The Hebrew language used by these early Jewish
converts was Aramaic – the same language Jesus would’ve used.
2)
There is no actual word for cousin in the Aramaic.
What the Jews of the 1st century spoke was Aramaic,
as such, when Matthew penned his Gospel to these Jews, the word brother HAD TO
have a much broader meaning than simply biological brother. The simple fact
that the word anepsios is used only once is testament to this claim, if
it weren’t, the term anepsios would’ve been used several times throughout the
New Testament. Additionally, anepsios doesn’t translate directly into the word
cousin, in it’s original form it means “[name] son of,” although it can be
translated to mean cousin it is not the literal word cousin.
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;"
The word for brother in the Greek for this verse is adelphos, are we therefore to assume that Peter is the literal biological brother of Paul? Of course not, nothing in Scripture ever, even remotely, suggest this! Easily seen is the fact that the word for brother, does and can infer both the literal and figurative use of the word.
Lastly, when Mr. Bohr reads Matthew 13:55-56, the implication here is that the town folk relate Jesus to his other brothers and sisters, this passage reads in part:
..."Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?"...
Here we see that an argument can be made that James, Joses, Simon and Judas are Jesus' brothers; indeed, the Greek word adelphos is used here for the term brother. However, the insinuation that they are Jesus' biological brothers falls apart quickly when we analyze the number of women at Jesus' crucifixion more in depth.
In John 19:25, we see that there are 3 Mary's at the cross: Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Cleopas and, Mary the mother of Jesus. In Matthew 27:55-56, we see that among the women who followed Jesus to the cross were,
...Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses and the mother of Zebedee's children.
If one were to take the fact that there were 3 Mary's at the cross, then in Matthew 27:56, the argument could be maid that the 3 Mary's were: 1) the Magdalene, 2) the Virgin Mary who is the mother of James and Joses as it is (apparently) stated in Matthew 13:55 and 3) Mary the mother of Zebedee's children. However, this would not only be a wrong interpretation but, an anti-biblical one!
In John 19:25, it is clear that the Magdalene, the Virgin and her sister are the ones at the cross. In Matthew 27, we only read of 2 Mary's standing a bit away from the cross and by verse 61, after Jesus has been put in the tomb, we see only 2 Mary's being talked about, the Blessed Virgin is the only one absent:
And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
Knowing that there were 2 Mary's - not counting Jesus' mother - who followed Jesus from Galilee AND that only 2 Mary's were mentioned in Matthew 27 verse 56, then it is very easy to see that the two Mary's mentioned here are: the Magdalene and the wife of Cleopas. But, there is still one more woman, the mother of Zebedee's children. To find out who she is, we go to Mark 15:40 where we read of 3 distinct women at the who followed Jesus to his crucifixion, among them were:
...Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;...
In other words, Salome is "the mother of Zebedee's children," that we read of in Chapter 27 verse 26 in the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, the mother of James and Joses has to be Mary's sister, the wife of Cleopas.
Knowing this, if we return to Matthew 13:56, it is impossible to reconcile that the Virgin Mary is somehow the mother of James and Joses...and yet, they are in fact stated to be Jesus' brothers! Ergo, the brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13 are his cousins or some other form of kinsmen AND NOT his biological brothers. Mary had no other children.
Bonus point of truth: In regards to the word cousin in Colossians 4:10, Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible (YLT), which was first published in 1887, 24 years after the SDA church was invented, doesn’t use either the word cousin nor the term sister’s son, it instead says nephew. Robert Knox’s Translation of the Latin Vulgate (KNOX), published in 1945, uses the term kinsman, not cousin. First published in 1965, the Amplified Bible (AMP) uses the term relative. I’ll state it again, if these different bibles are all the inspired word of God, why did the Holy Spirit inspire them to be at odds with one another when it comes to the basic and simple word for cousin? Is the Holy Spirit confused or, is it the men who revise these bible versions in order to make Scripture more to their liking the ones at fault? How can any Protestant, therefore, know with absolute certainty that their version of the bible is the correct one?
End of part 1
No comments:
Post a Comment