Did the Church Just Make Up Marian Doctrine? w/ Tim Staples

The Catholic Church has a LOT of teaching on Mary, but most of those teachings are relatively recent (as late as the 19th century). Did the Church just invent all of this in the 1800s, or did these dogmas exist before then?

------------------------------------------ SPONSORS ------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------ GIVING ------------------------------------------

This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.

-------------------------------------------- LINKS --------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------- SOCIAL --------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------- MY BOOKS -----------------------------------------

------------------------------------------- CONTACT -------------------------------------------

--

[aron]

"19th century is really late in the game, but in the 16th century"

BOTH OF THESE ARE REALLY LATE IN THE GAME!

I get so confused on Catholosism.

[jzak]

I don't see where Tim ever really answered the question posed in the title of the video? Saying that it took a lot of time for the Marian dogma's to be declared doesn't cut it. Where did these dogma's come from in the first place?

[louienasad]

I'm sorry, but this really just sounds like sophistry. He did not seriously answer the question any way that could be summed up in three sentences.

[joneilldg]

Dude you can’t the have it both ways. You can’t say on one hand your church is the same apostolic church that Christ instituted, and then say it’s OK for the church to develop doctrines later that the apostles never believed. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too

[njo]

A bit disappointed here. Reading early church father's demonstrates that any historic evidence for the Marian doctines are just not present pre-Nicea.

For instance, the mentions of being the physical mother of Jesus' 1/2 brothers & sisters raises doubt that what Marian Doctines state should be a historical fact about her perpetual virginity. The Ark of the Covenant is also ascribed to Jesus not Mary for the first 300 years, and this makes so much more sense with regard to his own immaculate conception (born without sin) vs. Mary this trait.

Long story short, it doesn't really pass the sniff test.

[starcityoldy]

Tim can you answer this question?

Tim: sure

Tim:

[JustBecause]

Tim, could you kindly please share at which point you answer the question?

[johng.]

For an organization that claims be the one true church, it sure spends considerable energy and time on false doctrine that has nothing to do with being a christian. May God have mercy on your souls.

[thelinkeducationalsupports]

What ever the Holy Spirit or God does however, He does not contradict scripture. He said ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Something as important as Mary not having sin, is a gross neglect of a Holy God to inform his people. He said there is one advocate, one mediator and that is Jesus Christ. It is amazing how many other scriptures have to be ignored and yes I said ignored for one to accept the doctrine of Mary. Did I say that these are explicitly stated scripture?

[delanchan]

Hey Matt, protestant here. I've found a new respect for catholicism lately due to your content and other catholic producers on YouTube. I find catholics to be very reasonable now. The one objection I have at the moment is this: the average layperson in a protestant church knows a lot more than a layperson in a catholic church. I remember encountering one that didn't know what genesis was. Could you tell me why this is? Not an attack on catholic teaching, but I'm genuinely curious

[gvmyjyb]

I hear this defense CONSTANTLY in both catholic and especially orthodox apologist responses, they legit resort to questioning the validity of Gods word.. just as he did here. If that isnt paganism, then what is?

[diggingpearls]

YES, IT DID! Catholics who believe going by the “oral tradition” of the Catholic church, which is not based on the Bible at all, is safe are foolish.

The scriptures show the Word of God was never left to “word of mouth” because everything thing God spoke was recorded by writing, which not only preserved his Word, but showed what was and wasn’t of God. Mr. Winger knows as much.
When the Jews added to God’s Word Christ scorned and rebuked them, and he used his word to do it.
That’s why God ordained that his Word be recorded and kept for a witness and to be passed on the generations.

God says plainly “all men have sinned, ” and gives no exceptions, including Mary, “and fallen short of the glory of God.” Rom 3:23, and through one man sin entered the world and “death spread to all men.” Rom 5:12. Why do Catholics deny this? Because they put trust in man rather than God's Word.

Also, the Catholic church is blind. They won't or can't share the missing huge step of Mary's sin offer and omit the important fact, and wrongly combine what Mary did on the eighth day as her COMPLETENES OF PURIFICATION, but it was not.

Luke 2: 21 says “And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”

They leave out “AND SHE SHALL "CONTINUE" in the blood OF HER PURIFIYING three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, UNTIL THE DAYS OF HER PURIFYING BE FULFILLED.” This wasn’t complete on the eighth day!

Leviticus 12:6 SAYS, "And when the DAYS OF HER PURIFYING ARE FULFILLED, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, FOR A SIN OFFERING, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest”

WHAT'S MISSING: In Luke 2:24 it says, “And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus VERSE 8 says “And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other FOR A SIN OFFERING: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

So, as it says, according to the law of Moses, every mother that conceived, either a male or female, AFTER AN APPOINTED TIME had to offer sacrifices to God: one as a burnt offering, and ONE AS A SIN OFFERING. DON'T OVERLOOK "AFTER THE "APPOINTED TIME"!

BACK TO LUKE 21 “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

NOTICE VERSE 22 “And WHEN "THE DAYS OF HER PURIFICATOIN" ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES “WERE ACCOMPLISHED, ” they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

NOTICE VERSE 23 “(As it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

FACT: VERSE 24 “And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
This is CLEARLY SHOWN she had to offer a SIN OFFERING!

Mary applied this very observance as was required of every Jewish woman born under the Law of Moses, and it’s clear that the offering Mary offers is according to law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Lk.2:24, the one for the burnt offering, and the other FOR A SIN OFFERING. Lev. 12:8.
Mary, being in the family of sinners, as all humans are since Adam, gave her sin offering.

Mary knew she was a sinner and admitted her estate as the handmaiden of God and not "Mother of God" “For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" Luke 1:48 "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior" Luke 1:46, 47 BUT Catholic pew warmers ignore this as well, because you don’t STUDY the Word, as God’s says to and believe the lies you’re told.

ALSO, the Scriptures plainly states the family Jesus had, and that she did conceive more children after the birth of Jesus. She never remained a virgin and can never be considered "immaculate" as the lying Catholic Church has exalted her to be.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" Matthew 13:55, 56. BUT CATHOLICS IGNORE THIS TOO!

Despite her being a participant in a miracle, Mary’s carnal nature tried to interfere with the mission of Jesus.
Mary lost sight of Christ for three days and shortly after Jesus began his public ministry. When Jesus returned home, crowds began to mass around hear him speak. Mark 3:20.
When Mary and his brothers got heard things had escalated, they went to seek him. It says his friends thought he was out of his mind.

When Jesus heard that his family was beckoning him, he ignored their pleas and said to the crowd, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Verse 34-35.

So, Jesus denied his mother and brothers in favor of those who listened, were open to and not offended by his message and believed him. His brothers hadn’t yet believed on him and Mary, as sinner and loss sight of Jesus more than once.

Christ set the record straight who He was at age 12 when she rebuked him and at the wedding of Cana, which you study more closely.
The “oral tradition” of the papists has made innumerable errors. The papists deny central doctrines, such as the application of our salvation, AND the gospel itself, in their denial of justification by faith alone.

Everybody who was born in Adam is worthy of condemnation (Romans 5:12-21.

Mary as mediatrix is unfounded in Scripture. Scripture tells us who makes intercession for the saints before the Father."

[AJKPenguin]

9 times of 10, if not more, the dogmas and doctrine didn't have to be defined in text as it was presumed every one was on the same page.

Newman's _Development of Christian Doctrine_ just shows how old standing, strong belief are only perfected and stated in new, wet ink when heresy and confusion are just a bit too noisy and numerous.

Such applies to Marian doctrine.

[robertj]

It's not that it took too long, it's that mariology is unbiblical.

[jzak]

I have never had anybody explain why it is that the first century Christians were saved without needing to accept any Marian dogma's, but the bar got higher and higher for later Christians to the point now where a Catholic MUST accept ALL the Marian dogma's or you cannot be saved! The first century Christians were not required to believe in them simply because they were not taught in Scripture. The Bible teaches we are saved by believing in the Son of God, Jesus, who was born of a virgin, whose sacrifice on the cross redeemed us from sin. We can also include baptism as being necessary, according to Scripture. We can also include keeping the Commandments and loving our neighbor according to Scripture. But where does it say anything about believing ANY of the Marian dogma's in order to be saved?

[exposingdarkness]

2 Do not add(A) to what I command you and do not subtract(B) from it, but keep(C) the commands(D) of the Lord your God that I give you. Deuteronomy 4:2. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:19 The Catholic Church has added so much to the Bible.

[ZTAudio]

Typical excuse-making, evasion, equivocation, and open fabrication.

[thelinkeducationalsupports]

The Holy does bring life and growth this is known as SANCTIFICATION...You are correct he is ever speaking but he is NOT CONTRADICTING HIMSELF. YOUR extra biblical texts contradict the bible. How do you reconcile those contradictions that are not mysteries but clear statements where God says DO NOT DO thus and so?

[michaelangelo]

For 8 centuries the dogmas were mainly focused on father son and spirit. Then 1000 years no new dogmas and in the last 2 centuries Mary dogmas and attempts at more Mary dogmas. Not Jesus is the lord of the universe and hope of the

[huntsman]

Umm, yes??? And they took some of it from false gosples that they claim aren't even in their bible.