Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Episode 2, Part 2

In the last installment of this Throwing Down episode, we went over several of the issues that the Seventh Day Adventists have concerning Mary. As it was noted, most - if not all - of their gripes with the Virgin Mother have distinct Catholic underpinnings which, try as they may, cannot be undone by simplistic, out of context and incomplete readings of Holy Scripture. We continue here with the second part of this four part episode in which we will analyze Mr. Bohr's attempts to do away with the historically accurate title "Mother of God" for Mary as well as trying to strip Mary of her all important place within Christianity by debasing and relegating her as just a simple, young woman who is nothing out of the ordinary.

@17:45-20:21, “Now a question that always comes up…is whether Mary was “the mother of God.” You say that sounds almost blasphemous…Mary was not the mother of God, because we know from Scripture that Jesus actually pre-existed Mary…John 17 verse 5…John 8 verse 58…John 1 verses 1 through 3…I’d like to read to you a very interesting statement that we find in the devotional book ‘Lift Him Up’…”

It was a Church Council in 431 A.D at Ephesus that gave Mary the title of Mother of God or, Theotokos, that is, “God-bearer” instead of Nestorian heretical term Christotokos, which meant “birth-giver of Christ.” The Nestorian heresy maintained that Mary only gave birth to the human nature of Christ and not the entirely God AND human nature of the infant Jesus. The Council Fathers stated that the term “Christotokos” separated Christ’s dualistic nature; 20 years after Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 would produce the doctrine of Jesus’ hypostatic union, meaning that in Christ there are 2 natures – one human and one divine; this was later reaffirmed again at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. Take note that from the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. to Constantinople II in 553 A.D., 228 years had passed and there were still some heretical factions within Christendom that did not accept Christ to be “of the same essence” with the Father as well as wholly rejecting the Trinitarian formula!

By the year 431 A.D., the Bible had already been canonized for close to 3 decades, thanks to the early Catholic Church, and it was specially due to the misinterpretation of Scripture that led to the ecumenical council at Ephesus. Indeed, a reading of Nestorius’ Second Letter to Cyril at the Council of Ephesus surmises this premise conclusively, for we see that Nestorius’ personal view of what the nature of Christ was - based on his view of Scripture - was what ultimately biased his take on Holy Writ. It’s a good thing that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was around to hammer out this basic Christian fundamental belief of the nature of Christ, right, Protestants?

Additionally, it took two Church Fathers at the Council at Chalcedon, Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, to come up with what would be called The Formula of Union which states (with my emphasis):

We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her…

As for Mr. Bohr’s statement that Mary cannot be the mother of God because Jesus existed before everything, Cyril of Alexandria wrote several letters to Nestorius in regards to his heretical notions and, in doing so, Cyril also addresses Mr. Bohr’s statement. In St. Cyril’s first letter, written in 430 A.D., he says the following (my emphasis in bold):

“…for the Scripture hath not said that the Word united to Himself the Person of a man, but that He hath been made Flesh. And the Word's being made Flesh is nought else than that He partook of flesh and blood in like way with ourselves and made our body His own and proceeded Man of a woman, not casting away the being God and His Generation of God the Father, but even while in assumption of flesh remaining what He was.

Thus does the declaration of the exact Faith everywhere set forth to us, thus shall we find that the holy Fathers thought, thus were they bold to call the holy Virgin Mother of God: not as though the Nature of the Word or His Godhead took a beginning of Being from the holy Virgin, but in that the holy Body souled with a reasonable soul was born of here, whereunto the Word united Personally is said to have been born after the Flesh.”

Plainly stated, the blessed virgin didn’t originate God the Son, she gave birth to the body in which God was inside of, CCC #495 states this as succinctly and as simple as possible:

Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

What is even more interesting is that by making the statement that “Jesus actually pre-existed Mary,” Mr. Bohr unwittingly and stupidly repeats the words of Nestorius! For it was Nestorius himself that declared,

“No one can bring forth a son older than herself.”

See how the enemies of the Church conjure up old heresies anew! How fitting that Mr. Bohr would use the SAME EXACT wording in our modern time that the Catholic Church condemned over 1,450 years ago. The most relevant fact about this heretical notion is that it is clear that even to this day Mr. Bohr didn’t learn the lesson from the Council of Ephesus as well as what the Catholic Church determined was the truth; as such, let me reiterate Christian history…

The title Mother of God or, Theotokos, was given to Mary NOT TO glorify her but, to glorify Him! The Council stated that the title of Mother of God, unifies Jesus to BOTH of His natures. Mary DID NOT give birth solely to Jesus’ human nature, she gave birth to Jesus as both man and God so, therefore, when Mr. Bohr states at the 18:00 mark that, “in the strictest sense of the word, Mary was not the Mother of God,” he is wrong because in birthing BOTH natures of Christ she birth God as well.  What Mr. Bohr is failing to see is that the blessed mother did not give birth to the eternal Trinity (God) but, she birth the second person of the Godhead; she wasn’t the creator of the Son, she was the conduit through which God the Son made Himself man. She gave birth to God the Son and, as such, is the Mother of God. To believe that God had a creator is simply foolish, however, to state that Mary is the Mother of God, is to state that Jesus HAS TO BE both man via His mother and God via His divine origin. Therefore, the title given to Mary is an extremely apt reflection of who her Son is.

Moreover, to say that Mary isn’t the Mother of God is to take away – not from Mary – but, from Christ and his divine nature. For if Mary did not give birth to a child that had the nature of God, then she only gave birth to a human child, at which point we must ask ourselves: So when did Jesus become God? Did he “grow into” his divine nature? If it did happen after His birth, where does Scripture mention it? If Mary did not give birth to Jesus’ divine nature, then Elizabeth’s words in Luke 1:43, have no meaning at all. Nor would Matthew 1:23 make any sense when it states:

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, ‘God with us.’” 

In other words, God is with us because a virgin with child gave birth to Him! Mr. Bohr attempts a semantics game at the 18:00 mark but unfortunately his attempt at convincing a smart Catholic that the proper title for Mary should be “God-man bearer” very perfectly illustrates why the Church chose Theotokos over 14 millennia ago: only by stating that she is the Mother of God can we really start to fathom the mystery of the incarnation and truly appreciate the inseparable and unchanging nature of Christ when He walked on earth and as He is in heaven. St. John Cassian in chapter 2, book 2 of his On the Incarnation of the Lord, written in the late 300’s, goes into great detail to set forth the proper view of Mary as the Mother of God, he begins by saying:

…O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotokos…For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning…

And finally, another perfect example of this most joyful mystery that is the incarnation, is stated by none other than Protestant Reformer Martin Luther in his 1521 commentary On the Magnificat:

The “great things” are nothing less than that she became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed upon her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among whom she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in Heaven, and such a child.

She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is Too exceedingly great; all she can do is break out in the fervent cry: "They are great things," impossible to describe or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.

No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though He had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the Mother of God.

Bonus point of truth: Need further proof that devotional beliefs of Mary are firmly grounded in Christian history? The oldest prayer we have which refers to Mary as the Mother of God is called the Sub Tuum Praesidium, which means “Under Thy Protection,” and was written around 250 A.D. It reads:

We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.

@ 22:50 – “Another interesting characteristic about Mary is that Mary was blessed…the bible does not say that Mary was the blessor. Scripture says that Mary was blessed…Luke chapter 1 verses 48 and 49.”

I simply love it when bible-alone Protestants use this passage due to the fact that they tend to go against what the Bible says in verse 48 when Mary says, “all generations will call me blessed!” I would like to therefore ask all bible-only Christians one question: Do you address Mary as blessed whenever you refer to her? Obviously Scripture demands you to do so, therefore, do you? At this point, I would like to state a simple fact: since the beginning of this video, Mr. Bohr has mentioned Mary 53 times and yet, never once, has he ever called her or refer to her as blessed; very interesting from a man who has set out to describe Mary using only the bible (and Ellen G. White) as his only source.

I therefore pose the question: what Protestant churches have existed in ALL generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions? Strangely enough we crazy Catholics, who apparently don’t follow Scripture (according to most Protestants), tend to call the Virgin Mother as Blessed Mary in both our prayer life and liturgical services, talk about weird, eh, Protestants?

@ 23:57 – Notice that we are not told here…it says [Luke 1:42] ‘blessed are you among women,’ and for those who think this is some peculiar, special way of addressing Mary because she was out of the ordinary, this expression is used more than one time in the Old Testament…Genesis 30 and verse 13…”

Mr. Bohr quotes Genesis 30:13 in order to see that Mary isn’t really “special,” unfortunately he totally misses why this term is used for Mary in light of the Old Testament. So let’s look at some other Old Testament expressions that Mr. Bohr didn’t quite get to and see how this translates to Mary. Deuteronomy 28:1-4 speaks about obedience and the blessings that one receives from being obedient to God, of specific note is verse 4 which starts by saying, “Blessed be the fruit of your womb…” When read in full context, chapter 28 talks about the many ways in which God blesses those who heed His word and curses those who abstain from it. But, a more illustrative expression that is also used to define Mary can be found in Judges 5:24, which reads:

Most blessed of women is Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, blessed among tent-dwelling women! 

Easily seen here is that this verse parallels Mary in Luke 1:42 as being “blessed among women,” it is the following verses however, that clearly and explicitly point to the direct pre-eminence of Mary. Verses 25-27 speak of how Jael murdered Sisera, a general of the Cannanite king who was oppressing the Jews (Jgs4:2), and of particular note is how Jael, who was blessed among [tent-dwelling] women, kills this tyrant. Picking up at verse 25, Sisera has fled into Jael’s tent after losing a battle, she promises to keep him safe at which point she offers him milk to drink in a Lordly cup:

25 He asked for water, she gave him milk, in a princely bowl she brought him curds. 26 With her hand she reached for the peg, with her right hand, the workman’s hammer. She hammered Sisera, crushed his head; 27 At her feet he sank down, fell, lay still; down at her feet he sank and fell; where he sank down, there he fell, slain.

If you don’t see a similarity here, then perhaps this question will get your brain juices going: Who was it that from the fall of Adam and Eve was destined to crush the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15? Was it not the seed of the woman? Who is the prophetic seed that will crush the head of the serpent if not Jesus? Thus, the woman who’s seed will crush the serpent has to be Mary. We can, therefore, notice at how Jael’s crushing of the general at her feet are a precursor to Mary’s seed crushing the head of the ancient serpent! Think about all of this and how the 1^st century Jews must’ve reacted the first time they heard Luke 1:42, they would’ve easily known about the story of Jael and Sisera, of how she was blessed, how she crushed a tormentor’s head and, of course, the Jews would’ve already been extremely familiar with Genesis 3:15. These early converts to Christianity already knew the typology involved and therefore were able to immediately see the pre-figurations of the Old Testament fulfilled in the new!

Finally, the most impressive Old Testament verse is found in Judith 13:18, which reads:

Then Uzziah said to her, “Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the leader of our enemies.

Uzziah was the king of Judah and he blesses Judith by telling her how she is blessed above all the women and he blesses her for beheading Holofernes, an Assyrian general who was about to destroy Judith’s hometown of Bethulia (see v.4-8)! So, once again, we see that Mary is foreshadowed here in the same manner as she was in Judges chapter 5. It is impossible for any of the early Christians to have escaped such similarities when posed with the character of Mary, they would’ve easily saw her as, not only the temple of the Word Incarnate but, as the most obedient and chaste creature that ever lived; the true handmaiden of the Lord who was far above and beyond any of the other women in the Jewish Scriptures.

So sorry Mr. Bohr, Mary IS special in every way imaginable: she was chosen from the beginning of all time to conceive the birth of Christ, she was an epitome of what all Christians should be like, she saw and suffered for her Son as He suffered for us and, of the utmost precedence, she was the 1^st Christian in all of history; for she knew, way before anyone, who she carried in her womb was none other than God Himself and she ,naturally, continues to remain faithful to Him unto this present day in His Glorious kingdom. To depict her as anything else is to mock God’s mighty will.

Bonus point of truth: How interesting is it that in Luke 1:42, Elizabeth praises Mary first AND THEN she praises Jesus? This is what the Catholic Church calls hyperdulia, in the same way that Elizabeth hears Mary and then John jumps in her womb, we Catholics believe that Mary – through divine intercession – continually calls us to her Son (see Lumen Gentium 60).

@25:00 – “Another very clear characteristic of Mary…is the fact that Mary is a sinner in need of redemption, in need of a Redeemer. In fact, we’re told in Romans 3 and verse 23  that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’ …So if you read the Bible, if you read the New Testament particularly, you’re going to discover that there is only one who is exempted from sin and that is Jesus Christ…Luke chapter 1 verses 46 & 47, where we’re told very clearly that Mary needed a Redeemer, she needed Savior…I’d like to read another statement from the book ‘Desire of Ages’…”

Ah yes, Romans 3:23! The deathblow to all Catholics who maintain that Mary was without sin! As it is stated, it reads:

...all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.

As I stated in Part 1 of this current Throwing Down episode, we cannot merely read the Bible and expect to learn the intricacies and beauty of God’s Word. We must dive deeper into the meaning and uses of words and phrases in order to truly grasp what is being said; to take simple cursory readings and apply them against Catholic teaching, as Mr. Bohr is doing, is a dead end. There is, therefore, an issue to be taken up here with the use of the word all. In the Greek it is written as πᾶς and is pronounced phonetically as  pas (see Strong’s #3956). However in Romans 3:23 it is written as the normative masculine plural adjective πάντες, pronounced phonetically pantes and, it is also the same word used in 2 Corinthians 5:14 which states:

For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died

It is also used in the same manner in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 22:

For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life…

Notice that in these two aforementioned verses, they both state that ALL have died. Now, if we are to use Mr. Bohr’s rationale, this HAS TO MEAN that every single human being that ever lived (before Christ) HAD TO of died. But, does the Bible support this claim? This is a favorite tactic used by Protestants to demonstrate that Scripture is at odds with Catholic teaching and therefore must be wrong. However, since I already went very in depth on this topic in my last Throwing Down series (see here @19:58), I will briefly reiterate the biblical proof that can be used to disprove that every single human, that is all, have died.

To begin with, let’s look at Hebrews 11:5. In it we read the following:

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and "he was found no more because God had taken him." Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God.

In other words, Enoch did not die and yet was able to see heaven; because of the faith that he had in God, Enoch was translated into the presence of God and thus he escaped death (see Gen. 5:24). We see the same thing with Elijah in 2 Kings chapter 2 verse 11 where he is taken up to heaven:

As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So here we have 2 different instances in which actual living creatures were miraculously taken up to haven WITHOUT dying. For this reason we can, with biblical certainty, assume that the word all does not necessarily mean “every single thing ever.” Hence when Mr. Bohr says that “all have sinned,” this likewise DOES NOT necessarily mean “every single living human ever” has sinned and, Roman Catholicism is the only religion that has always accepted this biblical reality to be undeniably true. As Christian history dictates, the early members of the unchanging Body of Christ also believed this to be factual, see here @ 19:25 for a quick look at the historical validity of Mary’s sinlessness.

The document d’être of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is none other than Ineffabilis Deus. Penned in 1853 by Pope Pius IX, this papal decree once and for all settled the case over Mary’s sinless nature that had began since the existence of the early Church, indeed, the document reads more like a historical analysis for proof of belief than a mandate for observance. Holy Mother church, imbued with the Holy Spirit, and speaking infallibly to all Christian faithful declared:

From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so loved her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.

As for Luke 1:46-47, the Catholic Church has NEVER denied that Mary was in need of a savior. Although sinless, she was still a creature and a descendent of Adam and Eve. Therefore, as a human being, she was unable to save herself in any way and therefore needed her Son’s infinite merited Grace to save her. What the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ultimately states is that Mary – from the moment of her conception – was instantly filled with so much of God’s grace that He not only removed the stain of Original Sin from her but she was also redeemed. However, the true cynic will invariably state that, since Jesus hadn’t died for us yet, it is impossible for Mary to have been saved beforehand. To which we must simply acknowledge the fact that Jesus has always been eternal; He, in all his heavenly glory, is not bound by time as we are…and neither is his power to save.

So before she was, He was. And He was able to give His mother-to-be the gift of grace that led to a sinless life as well as the gift of salvation from the very instance of her conception. Additionally, just using common sense we must deduce that if a sinless God were to be formed in a humanly womb, that womb would have to be absent any stain of sin. If the body is the temple of God then surely the temple that carried the Word would have to be as pure, innocent and unchanging as He who dwelt within it was. This thought of Mary as an undefiled carrier of the Messiah is prime in the belief that Mary was truly sinless, and no other title explains this Marian philosophy better than that of Ark of the New Covenant.

The title of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant clearly depicts why Mary HAD TO BE the purest human that was ever created. As early as the second century A.D., we see numerous church fathers exclaim that Mary is the new “Ark of the Lord” and this is one of the things that most Protestants won’t readily admit - that there are HUGE similarities between Mary, as the New Ark, and that of the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. With that being said, let’s see if we can flesh out the reasons from Scripture that make Mary the holiest wholly human that ever was.

To begin with, let’s see some characteristics of the Old Testament Ark. Exodus 25 mentions the measurements of the Ark as well as the fact that the Ark is to be lined outside and inside with precious gold. Exodus 37 speaks about its construction at the hands of Bezael. Indeed, the Ark itself was a treasure from God, it was the most prized treasure of the Israelites, for in it dwelt God Himself. Likewise with Mary: she was predestined to be the New Ark by carrying God inside of her and, in the same manner, Mary too remained “untouched”since the Ark and other sacred things were not to be touched nor looked at by the Kohathites (Numbers 4:15;20), who were specifically in charge of caring for the vessels within the sanctuary.  So strict was this edict that we see God kill off over 50,000 people who dared look inside the Ark in 1 Samuel 6:19! In other words, wherever God dwelt, was a special place, as seen when Moses was commanded to take off his sandals in front of the burning bush in Exodus 3:5. We also see the same thing in Exodus 19:12 , before Moses goes up into Mount Sinai to meet the LORD, God tells Moses that absolutely no Israelite is to touch or set foot on the mountain under the penalty of death! 

But there are even more similarities, take for instance what was placed inside the Old Testament Ark. According to Exodus 25:16, the tablets of God’s commandments were placed inside the Ark along with a container of manna (Exodus 16:31-35) and, according to Numbers 17:10, Moses told Aaron to put his staff alongside the tablets of God’s commandments. All 3 items inside the O.T. Ark are also mentioned in Hebrews 9:4. So, what do we have inside the O.T. Ark? We have: 1) the 10 Commandments, 2) manna and 3) Arron’s staff, in other words, we have: 1) the Word of God, 2) the Bread of God and 3) a symbol of the High Priesthood. Is this not what Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant possessed inside of her womb? Did Mary not carry the Word who was the Bread of Life as well as our High Priest? There is no way that anyone could deny this parallel between the two but, even if one were to, there are still other biblical typologies that not only lends credence to the title of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant but solidifies it as such!

Take for instance the blatant similarities used by Luke in his Gospel when describing certain happenings with Mary. In Exodus 40:34-35 as well as Numbers 9:18;22, we see that God, in the form of a cloud, is covering or tarrying over the Ark of the Covenant; is this not the same thing God is doing in Luke 1:35 when the angel Gabriel tells Mary that God will “overshadow” her with His power to conceive the Son of God in her womb? The parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the O.T. Ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary - between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God - is explained even better in CCC #697. It states:

…The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the "cloud came and overshadowed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John… the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his Ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming. The glory of the Lord "overshadowed" the ark and filled the tabernacle.

In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth exclaims:

“And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

In 2 Samuel 6:9, after the Ark of the Covenant had been taken away from the Israelites in a battle with the Philistines and then it was later returned to the Israelites (1 Samuel 5), King David went goes out to retrieve the Ark. And in 2 Samuel and in chapter 6 verse 9, we here David ask the following:

David feared the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

If this isn’t a clear and deliberate attempt by Luke the Evangelist to equate Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, then perhaps the following examples in his Gospel are:

In 2 Samuel 6:1-10, the Ark travels to the house of Obededom in the hill country of Judea. Luke 1:39 has Mary traveling to the house of Elizabeth through the hill country of Judea.

In 2 Samuel 6:11 we read that the Ark of the Covenant stayed at the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months. Luke 1:56 states that Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months.

In 2 Samuel 6:14;16 we see David dancing and leaping for joy in front of the Ark, in Luke 1:41-44, we see St. John leaping in his mother’s womb upon hearing the voice of Mary, the New Ark.

In 2 Samuel 6:15, David shouts in the presence of the Ark. In Luke 1:42, Elizabeth “spoke out in a loud voice” in the presence of the New Ark.

In 2 Samuel 6:17 we see the Ark returned to the City of David (Jerusalem) and it stays there until David’s son, Solomon, constructs the temple (1 Kings 6). In Luke 2:21-22 we see that Mary, the New Ark, is at the temple in Jerusalem.

Based on this biblical analysis one has to come to the conclusion that Mary is indeed the Ark of the New Covenant and, as such, she is the prize of God and of all of us Christians in the same way that the Ark of the Old Testament Covenant was the prize of Zion and her children. And just in the same manner that the Ark was special, protected, valuable and undefiled so too is our New Ark in Mary; and since God never changes, she too remained special, protected, valuable and undefiled in her earthly life, and now, more so in heaven.

End of part 2

Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Episode 2, part 1

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

"The human family was presented before me, enfeebled. Every generation has been growing weaker, and disease of every form visits the human race.... Satan's power upon the human family increases. If the Lord should not soon come and destroy his power, the earth would soon be depopulated." Testimony #8, in Spiritual Gifts Vol. IV

"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.”

And lastly, she was a HUGE anti-Catholic. Among her vitriol was the belief that Sunday worship was the “mark of the Beast,” which of course was instituted by the Catholic Church and, would be enforced by United States government in order to have the "true" believers worship the beast on Sunday! She also falsely claimed that one of the Pope’s titles is “Vicarius Filli Dei” which, coincidentally, she was able to add up to 666. Unfortunately for her, no Pope HAS NEVER - in the entire history of the papacy - had this as one of his various titles; she simply made it up for the convenience of her belief.

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.”

Mr. Bohr takes this one passage and goes on to claim that since Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn” this indicates that there must’ve been more children that Mary had. He says at the 11:49 mark that “it wouldn’t make any sense to say that He was the firstborn son unless she had other children. In that case, you would say ‘her only son’ but, Jesus is called her firstborn son.” What Mr. Bohr has done here is an utter failure to communicate the entirety of Scripture as well as attempting to tell us what the Bible should’ve said in order to invalidate SDA’s personal, and relatively new, interpretation of Holy Scripture. I say that he failed to communicate the whole of Scripture because he grossly and obtusely – perhaps intentionally (?) – ascribes the word “firstborn” to Jesus AND NOT the title of the “firstborn,” to Jesus! Let’s see what Scripture has to say about the firstborn.   

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:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.”

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.”

However, while there was a large anti-Trinitarian wing of the SDA in its early inception, the man from whom the SDA sprung from, William Miller, was himself a Trinitarian! Which means that at some point in time the SDA church didn’t wholly believe in the Trinity and were wrong in not doing so, but now, they are correct in believing in it as part of their 28 core beliefs. So now comes the question de jour: if the SDA was wrong then, how do they know they aren’t wrong now?

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.”

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.

In 2 Peter 3:15, we read:

"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