DEBATE: Was Mary Sinless? NeedGod.net vs "Jesus and Whatnot"

Well, hello dear friends, legends, theologians, keyboard warriors, and that one guy who definitely clicked this by accident. Welcome to today's debate. That topic being the Bible teaches that Mary has always been sinless. Strap yourselves in. This topic has created more uproar than switching from the KJV to literally any other translation.

Tonight, we've got two heavy hitters. First up is Noah from Jesus and whatnot. Welcome aboard. proudly swinging for the affirmative. And right after him, we'll hear from Ryan from needgod.net, repping the negative like a calm Christian bulldozer.

Before we begin, some quick housekeeping duties for the audience. Please keep this chat clean. This is a friendly debate, not a cage match. So, let's all play nicely. If you start throwing verbal elbows or if you get spicy, our moderators will lay hands on you, the digital kind, and will slam you with the timeout hammer or send you out to the stadium all together. Be Christlike or at least try to be Christlike, 70% Christlike. If we're claiming to be Christian, then let's act like it. Okay.

While the speakers swap places between segments, we'll throw in some Bible trivia to keep you awake and prevent anyone from scrolling Tik Tok. When you hear this sound, be ready for a question.

Debate format. Each speaker gets 17 minutes for an opening statement, then 12 minutes for a rebuttal. We'll explain cross-examination and viewer questions when we get there, mostly because I know half of you won't listen until that point.

Anyway, now I know you're all keen and want to get questions in nice and early before that segment starts. So, if you do, for your questions to Ryan, please put the letter QR before the question. And likewise for Noah, place the letters QN in front of the questions. This will help our glorious, underpaid moderators sort through the chaos. Bless them. They're doing the Lord's work and definitely deserve snacks. And a big thank you in advance for any super chats. God bless your generosity and your questionable financial decisions. Every dollar brings us one step closer to a world where Christian content actually beats cat videos in the algorithm. While you're at it, like, subscribe, ring the bell. You know the drill.

All right, enough from me. Noah, take it away. Your 17 minutes begins now.

>> Mary, I would like to uh

>> Do you want to just just one second? Oh, just now you're unmuted, so go for it now.

>> Okay, awesome. Can we restart my timer if that's all right?

>> Yep, we'll do that.

>> All right. Awesome. Today, we are talking about the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Before I begin, I would like to clarify what the Catholic position actually is. We believe that upon her conception, Mary was saved from all sin, personal and original. We do not believe, however, that this is of her own power, glory, or holiness, but rather of God's power, glory, and holiness. We also believe that Jesus is Mary's savior, as explicitly stated in Luke 1:47. However, we believe that Mary was saved on a different timeline than the rest of us. Uh an analogy that I like to use to explain this is what I like to call the pit of sin. On the left you will see how regular people are saved. All of us are walking alone in the desert and each one of us has fallen into the pit of sin. After we have fallen, Jesus comes and pulls us out of that pit. Mary on the right likewise was walking alone in the desert. But God Jesus saved her before she ever fell into sin. Jesus still still saved her, but it happened at a different point in time. You might ask yourself, is a salvation on a different timeline biblical? Well, yes. In Romans 3:25, we read that God's divine forbearance helps to pass over former sins. God's sacrifice to humanity is not bound by time and can therefore be applied to Mary upon her conception.

In order to prove this claim, I would like to start in Ephesians 1:5-7 where we read, "He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace with which he graced us in the beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." The Greek word used for he graced us is ekeritosen. A keratossen is the aist form of the Greek word kerito which means I grace, I favor or I bestow grace. The Bible defines kerito with three effects found in Ephesians 1:5-7. It says that we will have adoption to Christ as sons, redemption and the forgiveness of our trespasses. There are two uses of kerito in the entire New Testament. One is in Ephesians 1:5-7 to describe the grace of Christ himself and once in Luke 1:28 to describe Mary. In Luke 1:28, we read, "Hail, O graced one, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women." The Greek word used for ocraced one is keritomen. Kertomen comes from kerto. It is the perfect passive participle form. According to Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace the perfect passive participle ky to men indicates a permanent state as a result of a past completed action Mary had been endowed with grace kerito in the past with the effects continuing into the present if we go back to Ephesians 15-7 we read that kerito is defined as adoption to Christ as sons redemption and the forgiveness of our trespasses do you see what this means Mary was called keritomen before Christ was ever born therefore Mary had the three-fold effects of grace. Before Christ's birth, Mary had already been an adopted daughter. She was already redeemed by Christ and she was already forgiven of all sin when she was greeted by the angel Gabriel. It also means that Mary was perpetually in a state of grace. Kerito many means that Mary's state of kerito was from her conception. According to Greek scholar Renee Laurenton, she had been perfectly and permanently transformed by this grace. And we should not be surprised because God can and does preserve people from sin. In Jude 1:24, we read, "Now to him who is able to preserve you from falling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory and great with great joy. God preserves all of us from sin, he just did it the most for Mary."

I'd actually like to take a closer look at Jude 1:24, which reads, "Now to him who is able to preserve you from falling and to present you blameless or amuse before the presence of his glory with great joy." Amamus according to the Begad Greek lexicon means without defect, blameless, unblenmished and sinless. This word by definition means to be sinless. If we go back to Ephesians 1, amuse is actually used to define kyito. In verse four, we read, "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him, a mamoose." And that is used to define Ekertosen, which is the ais form of kerito. This means that Mary is literally described as sinless in Luke 1:28, which calls her kerito. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that kerito means to be blameless or amamus. Amamus necessitates sinlessness according to the begad Greek lexicon. Therefore, Mary is called sinless by the angel Gabriel before the incarnation of our Lord.

Now, why would God want a sinless woman? Mary, as the mother of our salvation, represents the new covenant of faith. Her sinlessness is a sign of what can be accomplished through God's grace. Mary is also the new Eve. In Genesis, in Romans 5:15, we read that the sins of the world come through Adam. Eve was interfall was intertwined with the fall of Adam. A woman intertwined with the fall. Likewise, a woman Mary was intertwined with the redemption of Christ. The woman Eve rejected God in Genesis 3. But the woman Mary follows God. In Luke 1:38, where she says, "Behold, I am the handmade of the Lord." Eve brings sin into the world, but Mary brings salvation incarnate. We read, "Blessed is Mary in Luke 1:45." The fruit of Eve is evil. Remember, she ate from the fruit that brought sin into the world in Genesis 3:6. But the fruit of Mary is good. We read in Luke 1:42, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Luke uses the word fruit on purpose to show that Mary is the new Eve. And this isn't just a coincidence. It's a prophecy. After the fall, God speaks of an unknown woman while addressing the serpent or Satan. He says to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and thy seed and her seed. He shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie and wait for his heel." The Greek, the Hebrew word used for enmity is ava. Ava means to be in complete and total opposition. In Genesis 3:15, God says to the unknown woman uh that she will have enmity between her and Satan and that they will be in complete and total opposition. Obviously, this woman cannot be Eve because Eve continued to live in sin. She did not have enmity with Satan. This begs the question, who is the woman? Before we answer that question, this woman must be in complete and total opposition to enmity. There is one such woman. Her seed or child will be at war with evil. There is one such child and her seed shall crush the serpent's head or destroy him. There is only one child who has ever done that and that is Jesus Christ. And the mother of Jesus Christ is Mary. Mary is the only woman whose child Jesus has defeated Satan. This means that Mary as defined by Genesis 3:15 must be in complete opposition to evil, sinlessness. Jesus actually confirms that Mary is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Jesus only calls Mary woman throughout the entire New Testament. He never refers to her by name, either woman or mother. In John 2:4, we read, "Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come." And then again in John 19:26, "Woman, behold thy son." Jesus never once calls Mary by name, only as woman or mother. All of this is to fulfill Mary's role as the new Eve. Protestant evangelical scholar DA Carson says the form of address woman, though not inherently disrespectful, is nevertheless unusual for a son to use towards his mother. It's also important to note that Jesus calls Mary woman twice during his ministry. Once at the wedding in Canaa, which is the beginning of his ministry, and once at the foot of the cross, the fulfillment of his ministry. Jesus started and ended his divine mission with Mary. Biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown says, "John thinks of Mary against the background of Genesis 3. She is the mother of the Messiah. Her role is in the struggle against the satanic serpent. Mary is the new Eve, the symbol of the church. Mary simply is this woman. Mary and her seed are intertwined to destroy sin. Mary and Jesus are intertwined. God planned out Mary's sinlessness even from the moment of the fall. He says that there will be enmity between the mystery woman, Mary, and Satan."

And this isn't even just prophecy, but rather a necessity. God refuses to dwell in sin. Yet, he dwells within Mary. In Exodus 33:3, we read that God refuses to dwell among sinners or within sinners. For this reason, he stayed only within the ark of the covenant. Mary is the new ark of the covenant. God lived within Mary for nine months, and God refuses to dwell in sin. Mary, because of her intimate closeness to Christ in her womb, could not be sinful. Paul actually tells us what was inside of the old ark of the covenant. He said that there is mana, Aaron's staff, and the tablets of the old covenant. The mana as described in John 6:48 represents Christ. He says, "I am the mana from heaven." Likewise, the Aaron staff that budded also represents Christ because he is the high priest. Finally, the tablets of the covenant or the ten commandments represent Christ who is the law as shown in Matthew 5:17. The mana, the priesthood, and the law lived within the ark of the covenant. Christ, who is the fulfillment of the mana, the priesthood, and the law, lived within Mary. This means that Mary is the fulfillment of the ark. God would not let the ark be touched by sin. It says that if anyone touches the holy objects, they will die. Since Mary is the new ark, she must also not be touched by sin. God uses typological parallels to share his message all throughout the Bible. A great example is what we just talked about. Christ is aligned with the mana, the priesthood, and the law. In Hebrews 14, in the same way, Mary is aligned with the ark throughout the New Testament. Elizabeth says, "How has it happened to me that the mother of my Lord should come?" In Luke 1:43, then David says, "How shall the ark come to me?" In 2 Samuel 6:9. This is not a coincidence, but rather a typological parallel. In 2 Samuel 6:11, we read that the ark of the Lord stays in Oed Edom for 3 months. Likewise, Mary stays in the house of Elizabeth for three months. This isn't a coincidence. Luke knew what he was doing when he wrote this. In 2 Samuel 6:14, we read that David leaps for the presence of the ark. And then in Luke 1:41, John the Baptist leaps for the presence of Mary. This is not a coincidence. Luke knew what he was doing. In 2 Samuel 6:2, the ark of the covenant stays in the hill country of Judea for 3 months. In Luke 1 139, Mary stays in the hill country of Judea for three months. This is not a coincidence. Finally, in Exodus 40:34-35, we read that the presence of God overshadowed the ark. Then in Luke 1:35, the power of the most high overshadows Mary. The word used for overshadow is actually the same in the New Testament and the Septuagent. It is epiasco. This is not a coincidence. We actually read in Revelation that Mary is aligned perfectly with the new ark because in Revelation 11:19 it says that we see the new ark of the covenant. And then in Revelation 12:1 we hear a description of a woman clothed with the son. Now keep in mind these verses were not separate. Revelation 12:1 came directly after Revelation 11:19 because in the original New Testament there were no chapter and verse separations. According to New Testament scholar Brandt Peter, if Jesus is the new mana, then where is the new ark? Mary fulfills that prophecy. When Jesus is conceived in her womb, Mary becomes the new ark of the covenant, bearing the presence of God. So Mary is the new ark. What does that mean for us? We know that God would not let his ark be touched by sin according to 2 Samuel 6-7. Likewise, Mary was not touched by sin.

Now, there's a lot of common objections to the blessed virgin sinlessness. A great one comes from Romans 3:25. This is the most popular which says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." However, the Greek word used for all is panton. And panton in Greco Roman literature is often used with exceptions. Paul actually tells us that he's using exceptions in the same chapter. In Romans 3:10, he writes that no one is righteous. This is the same chapter as Romans 3:23. Sorry, I don't know why it says Romans 3:25. It should be Romans 3:23. In the same passage, Paul tells us that no one is righteous. However, the Bible tells us that many people are righteous like Noah in Genesis 6:9, Abraham, Job, David, Daniel, Simeon, Lot, and many, many more. So, if we go back to Romans 3:23, not 25, we read that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But we know that Paul was using exceptions in this chapter. Obviously, Paul does not mean everyone because Christ never sinned. And you might say, well, it says explicitly that Jesus never sinned. But remember Luke 1:28 def defines Mary's grace as sinlessness in Ephesians 1:5-7 which means that Mary is also explicitly called sinless. Um there's also Luke 1:22-24 which says that Mary uh Joseph and Jesus come and bring a sin offering to the temple. Um however the Greek word uh there is the masculine plural. Um and this actually would include Jesus. When Protestants claim that this means that Mary sinned, it means that Jesus would have sinned too. Um making a sin sacrifice is actually commanded by God as well in Leviticus 12:8. So, if Mary did not do this sacrifice, she would be sinning. She is the sinless woman of God and therefore she fulfilled God's commands perfectly. It also says in Leviticus that after making this atonement that a priest shall make atonement for her after making the sin offering. Even though Mary made the sacrifice in the New Testament, no atonement is ever made for her in the Gospels. Meaning that she was already atoned for. she was already justified. So, this objection actually proves Mary's sinlessness. All of the other objections simply are verses that say that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God in different words. But, as we've shown, Mary is explicitly called sinless in Luke 1:28. So, we know that she is an exception to the general rules of sin.

Going back to Mary in Luke 1:28, it says, "Hail, O graced one." The Greek word used for hail is kyre which puts the perfect passive participle into the vocative form. The vocative form means that it's not just somebody being described in this way but it is the state of her very being. According to Greek scholar Julia Hedgeuk the first the Greek suggests in a way that translates unfortunately obscure a connection between Gabriel's Kyrie and the word that follows it kerytomen. Since Kyrie and Kyrie are from the same root, the etmological word play conveys that Mary should rejoice because she is the one defined by grace. Hail Kyrie is also used to describe Jesus himself as the king of the Judeans. Mary and Christ are greeted in the exact same way, evocatively with Kyrie. If you try to rob Mary of her queenship and sinlessness, you are also removing the kingship and sinlessness from Christ. This is why Mary says things like, "My soul magnifies the Lord." and from now on all generations will call me blessed. And finally, behold, I am the handmade of the Lord. In conclusion, Mary is sinless because the Bible tells us so. Luke 1:28 says it explicitly. She's sinless because she's the new Eve. And she's sinless because she is the ark of the covenant, the new ark of the covenant, undefiled by sin. Thank you.

>> Yes. Thank you, Noah, for your presentation there of your first 20 minutes opening. But guess what? There's our magic. We are now going to do a Bible trivia question while Ryan presents and gets ready for his presentation. So my first question to you is a multiplechoice. Who was the first king of Israel? Is it David, Saul, Solomon, or Samuel? Quickest answer in takes out bragging rights for today. Who's it going to be? And bragging rights go out to uh if this screen stops around Noah Alban. I don't know if I've got that right in saying that, but well done. You get the honors for today. But we are now going to reset the clock and we're going to throw it over to Ryan. Up to you now, Ryan. Take it away.

>> I'll just get it ready for us, Paul. Sure.

>> Okay, let me bring up my slides. Okay. And there go. Okay. Here we go. Let me start now. Was Mary sinless? Before we get into arguments, we need to be clear about the task tonight. The resolution says that the Bible teaches that Mary has always been sinless. Because of that wording, the entire burden of proof sits on the affirmative side. My debate opponent needs to show five things. First, he must prove that Mary was sinless, not just honored or favored or a recipient of grace. Two, he must prove that she has always been sinless. So, not just from the time when the angel or sometime before the angel spoke to her, but from her conception all the way until even today. Anything less does not meet the resolution. Number three, he must prove that Mary kept the entire law of Moses because that is required for her to be truly without sin since the Mosaic law applied to her. Four, he must prove that all the ver the Bible verses that speak about the universal sinfulness of humanity doesn't apply to Mary. And five, he must prove all these things from the Bible alone. not from later traditions, not from councils, not from church fathers opinions or from dreams he's had, but from the scripture itself since that's what the resolution says. Now, if Noah cannot meet this burden from the Bible alone, then the resolution fails and the negative wins. There is no doubt that Mary was blessed. We greatly respect her. We praise God that he used her to give birth to the Messiah. But to say that she was always without sin her entire life is to deviate from scripture and I would actually say disrespects her. Just like if you were to continually call me the president of the United States when clearly I'm not, I would see that not as respect but as disrespect. And Mary isn't being honored when you call her sinless. It's dishonoring her. If anything, if we have a biblical view of Mary as a woman who was a sinner like the rest of us, but one who God used in a special way to give birth to Jesus, that is the best way of honoring her and respecting her, not going beyond what is written. as the Apostle Paul says. But how some people speak of Mary, it seems like she's the central focus in the Bible. The Catholic Catechism says it calls her our mother and that we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her. We address ourselves to the to the mother of mercy, the allholy one. What? Look what they just called Mary. Nowhere in the scriptures is she called the allholy one. Only God is called the holy one. We give ourselves over to her now and surrender the hour of our death holy to her care. This is clearly a misdirected focus. Paul says that we should should bring all of our requests to God. We should be casting all our anxieties on him because he cares for us. Notice the pronoun him, not her. The catechism also says, "Taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving office, but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. She has a saving office even right now. She brings us the gifts of eternal salvation. This is completely foreign to the pages of sacred scripture. See how Mary in some sense is taking the place of God in many people's minds. Scripture says salvation belongs to the Lord and he he always lives to make intercession for us in regards to Christ. In the Bible, Mary doesn't seem to be any sort of major focus. If we put all the verses that relate to Mary together, it wouldn't even be longer than Psalm 119. That one chapter is actually significantly longer than all the verses in the Bible about Mary combined. And not one of those verses speaks about her being always sinless. And remember, I don't have to prove that she has sinned in this debate. I have the negative side. I just have to show that the Bible never mentions that she's always been sinless. And the amount of time it takes to read all the verses in the Bible about Mary is approximately four minutes. And so, having read all through those verses, there's not a single one that speaks about her sinlessness in the Bible. And if you just gave someone a Bible without them hearing about these Mary and dogmas, they would never come up with the idea that Mary was always sinless.

Now, in the opening statement of Noah, you heard a lot of mental gymnastics to try and support a belief in his church. His church says that he must accept because otherwise if he doesn't accept it, quote, he is condemned by his own judgment that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith and has separated from the unity of the church. and that furthermore by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writings or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart. Wow. That was a threat given by Pope Pas the 9th when he defined the immaculate conception of Mary. That is her being born without original sin. Notice the control that this Roman Catholic organization places upon people that even if you express any disagreement, there are penalties established by law. This should prevent anyone from wanting to convert to Roman Catholicism. In my opinion, Catholics like Noah don't believe in the sinlessness of Mary from just reading the Bible. Even many prominent Roman Catholics admit this. Ludwick Ought who is considered one of the most respected Catholic theologians of the 20th century said this the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in scripture. Wow. He admitted it and the immaculate conception is where is Mary being born without original sin. He goes on to say individual Greek fathers eg origin basil johnsostum serial of Alexandriandria taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults such as ambition and vanity. Neither the Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the immaculate conception of Mary. Now, Noah tonight cannot claim it's the universal teaching of Christians for the first 1500 years to believe Mary was always sinless because many of them believed she sinned. But again, Noah has to prove his case from scripture, not from church fathers anyway. So if he does bring up church fathers, he's not supporting his case. Even Leo I known as often known as Pope Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome in the 400s, rejected the idea that anyone but Christ was sinless. You even have doctors of the Catholic Church rejecting the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin such as Anselm, Bernard, Albert the Great, and even Thomas Aquinas himself. Look what he said. If Mary had no original sin, she would not need redemption by Christ, which detracts from his dignity as universal redeemer. Aquinus makes the great point that this doctrine means that Christ is not Mary's redeemer. Mary is up in heaven without the need for Jesus dying for her sins. She she therefore can't praise God for redeeming her because redeeming means to be set free from captivity. But if Mary never sinned, she doesn't deserve hell. And so she can't praise God for being saved from the punishment she deserves.

Now in Luke 7, there was a woman of the city who came to Jesus to wash his feet. And some Pharisees were having a go at him and criticizing him for letting this woman do it to her. And so Jesus tells the Pharisee this parable. A certain money lend lender had two debtors. One owed 500 dinari and the other 50. When they could not pay, he canceled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more? Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he canceled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." And then Jesus goes on to say, "Therefore, I tell you, her sins, her many sins have been forgiven. That's why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little loves little. You see, if Mary had no debt canceled, no sins forgiven, there is less reason for her to praise God compared to being a sinner who's been forgiven by God. But scripture makes very clear, Mary did consider herself in need of saving. She said, "My spirit rejoices in God, my savior." Luke 1:47. Only sinners need a savior. The natural reading of this text is not that God prevented her from ever sinning, but that she was saved from what she deserved for her sin.

There's an instance where Jesus's family, which would include his mother, spoke against Jesus. Look at Mark 3. Then he went home and the crowd gathered again so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, "He is out of his mind." To claim Jesus is out of his mind is insulting to our Lord and would therefore be sinful. In Luke 2, Mary falsely accuses Jesus of disobeying his parents when he was left behind in the temple at age 12. It says, "And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress." Why have you treated us so is not a neutral question. It assumes wrongdoing. Mary places the blame on Jesus even though he had not disobeyed. He had not sinned and had done exactly what the father willed. If anything, Mary and Joseph had been negligent parents in not checking to see if Jesus was with them as they returned from Jerusalem. Because not doing what you're supposed to do is sin.

Plus, there are plenty of passages that speak about the universal sinfulness of humanity. And clearly Jesus isn't included in those verses because he's God. But Mary isn't God. So she's not an exception. Let me give you some examples. The psalmist says in Psalm 130, "If you, oh Lord, should mark iniquities, oh Lord, who could stand?" According to Noah, the psalmist is wrong because Mary Mary apparently can stand. What about Solomon? He says, "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." According to Noah, uh Solomon's wrong about this because Mary apparently never sins. What about the prophet Isaiah? Or we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. According to Noah, Isaiah, you're wrong as well. What about the Apostle John? He says in 1 John 1:8, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." Now, if Mary read that letter of John, would she say, "John, I've got no sin?" Not a chance. Otherwise, she's deceiving herself, how much of the Bible is my debate opponent going to have to ignore to hold on to his idea that Mary has always been sinless? What about the words of our Lord Jesus Christ himself? He said in Mark 10:18, "No one is good except God alone." If Mary was an additional exception to the phrase, "No one is good," he would have said it. Otherwise, it makes Jesus's statement misleading. But Jesus doesn't mislead. He always speaks the truth. So therefore, the only one who is good is God. And good here means sinless. Now, sometimes scripture can refer to other individuals as like a good man such as Joseph Arythea or Barnabas. But that clearly doesn't mean sinless, but just that they men of decent character in society. Now, Paul also echoes what we've been seeing in scripture when he says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Now, Noah has already said, "Oh, Jesus is an exception to that." Noah, Jesus is God. So, clearly, Jesus can't fall short of his own glory. That's plain and obvious why Jesus is an exception to that. But it's not obvious why Mary would be. You see, God uses sinners for his good purposes. Think of Abraham. God used him to be the father of a great nation, yet he was a sinner. Think of David, a man after God's own heart, yet he was a sinner, too. Or even John the Baptist, also a sinner, who interestingly enough is greater than Mary, according to Jesus. Jesus said, "I tell you, among those born of women, none is greater than John." Mary was born of women, and yet Jesus said, "John is greater than even her." And so now if she was sinless, she would definitely be greater than John. But she's not according to Jesus. The point is God uses sinners. All the prophets were sinners. All the apostles were sinners. The very men who'd write down sacred scripture, guess what? They were sinners. If God was to keep anyone free from sin, you'd think maybe it's these men, the very ones who are considered the foundation of the church. Nope. They're all sinners. So none of this, oh, it'd be fitting if Mary was perfect. Those arguments don't work. It'd be more fitting that these guys would be perfect than Mary. And yet, none of them are. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus had sinners wash his feet. Jesus had sinners touch him. He touched sinners. He even washed their feet. So being born from the womb of a woman who is a sinner doesn't affect Jesus's sinlessness because sin is not a substance transferred through touch or DNA. In fact, Jesus even goes up and touches a dead body, which under Old Testament law would make a person unclean. But for Jesus, it didn't. Instead, it brought the man back to life. Nothing affects Jesus's sinlessness. He never says, "Only once you're clean can you come around me or touch me." And so, whatever argument Noah is using about Mary having to be perfect because Jesus was, would also then have to apply to Mary's mother. But if it's not needed for Mary's mother to also be sinless, then it's also not needed for Mary to be sinless either. Also notice carefully that with Noah's arguments, he asserted a lot of things, things that the Bible doesn't teach. Like for example, Mary's the new Eve. Scripture doesn't say that. Or Mary is the new ark of the covenant. Scripture doesn't say that. He made typological arguments that don't hold any weight because no author of scripture makes that particular typological argument. Otherwise, you can make the Bible say really anything you want it to say. For example, Elijah, he was fed by ravens, right? So, that must be a prophecy that Christians should expect animals to deliver their groceries to them. That's fitting, isn't it? What about Gideon's 300 soldiers? That's proof that churches can only have 300 members and no more. see the absurdities that can arise if someone just picks something out of the Bible and makes a connection to something today that it's not talking about. Noah in his opening statement has been unable to prove that the Bible teaches that Mary has always been without sin. His position is indefensible. As somebody tongue and cheek said in the comment section, it'd be easier to prove that Jesus had six fingers on each hand than proving Noah's position in this debate. Mary was saved the same way we are if our trust is in Christ. We're all wretched sinners who deserve hell for our sins because one sin is enough to deserve hell. So hell is what Peter and Paul deserves. Hell is what I and my debate opponent deserve. But it's also what Mary deserves. And that's not disrespect. That's just stating facts. And I'm sure Mary would say a hearty amen. But Mary was saved by faith in Christ. And so am I. And so can anyone today who trusts in Jesus that he is enough to save them without trusting in their works to cooperate or contribute. Mary Mary will be forever praising Jesus that he died for her sins just like all the others who end up in heaven will be. You can't rob her of that privilege. In Acts 20:28 it talks about how Jesus obtained the church of God with his own blood. Mary was part of the church. Clearly, every member of the church was redeemed by the blood Jesus shed for their sins. That means that since Mary belongs to the church, she also needed redemption through the blood of Christ. I look forward to making a response to Noah's points he's made in his opening in my rebuttal period. But as we've seen, scripture does not teach that Mary has always been sinless. When Mary's immaculate conception was proposed in the 1800s, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Paris said, "This doctrine, quote, could be proved neither from the scriptures nor from tradition in regards to the immaculate conception." So, it's not just Protestants who reject this man-made doctrine. It's also prominent Roman Catholics. So, let's always check it with the Bible yell. Thank you.

>> Yes. Well done Ryan for your opening statement there as well. You've both presented some great cases and uh we are now going into the rebuttal side of things. But before we do, there's some tunes for a new question. So it will be multiple choice and my next question will be ready for bragging rights there for all of you that are playing along. What river did Joshua and the Israelites cross to enter the promised land? Was it the Euphrates, Tigris, Jordan, or Nile? Punch in your answers there now while I get this new timer set up for 12 minutes. And has anyone got them in there? If Ryan can put up the person that got it first, Eclipse, looks like they've come in with the first one. Then we've got Jamie. Right on Jamie and Mad T8, whatever that is. Okay, well done, guys. We are now going to move into the rebuttal now where each of you get 12 minutes um to respond to the opening statement by the others. So Noah, you went first on the opening. So you now getting to go first on the rebuttals. Your time starts when you start.

>> All right. Well, um I would first like to start off by saying I'm a little bit disappointed. Um, Ryan spent maybe the first half of his entire opening statement talking about the Catholic Church. And while yes, I am a Catholic, that's not what the debate is about. The debate is, did Mary sin according to the Bible? Was Mary sinless according to the Bible? Where does that talk about the Catholic Church? Even if the Catholic Church is 100% wrong, if it's completely heretical, that does not change the fact that the Bible teaches clearly that Mary was without sin as shown in Luke 1:28. So again, I'm just very disappointed that so much time was wasted. So if if you thought that Ryan made a lot of good points quoting from the catechism, quoting from councils, or quoting from popes, throw that aside. That's not what this debate is about. Okay? I could I could refute all of them if I wanted to, but it would just be a waste of time and a red herring. Um, in Ryan's opening statement, he said, "In order to win this debate, I must prove that Mary was sinless." I already did that. Luke 1:28 clearly says it, right? That kertomen, it's defined by the Bible itself in Ephesians 15-7 as sinlessness. That omamus as used in one uh Jude 1:24, the Bible literally says that Mary is sinless. I'm sure that Ryan's going to try to refute to that, but it's what the Bible teaches. We just don't see that so clearly because it's in the English. But this is why all the early Christians who read the Greek decided, yes, no, Mary was sinless. That's why they teach it abundantly. Um, yeah. So, he also attacked veneration of Mary a lot. He said, "Oh, see, they're they're worshiping Mary. They're giving uh their their glory and their souls to her." Again, that's not what this is about. It's not about veneration. It's about does the Bible teach that Mary was sinless? Um, he claims that Mary is is not talked about a lot. He says all of the verses that talk about Mary could be read in four minutes. Okay. What what does that prove? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but what what is the amount of of passages about a person say about whether or not they sinned? It's it's completely ridiculous. if you could throw up my presentation for me, I would I would like to go through a few things. Thank you so much. Um, so he brought up Mark 10:18, which says, "No one is good but God alone." And I fully agree with that verse. It just means that no one is good apart from God because God is the source of all goodness. Uh, many people in the Bible are actually explicitly called good. Ryan even admitted this. um Barnabas, Joseph of Arya, uh Tobit, David, uh the good Samaritan, Cornelius, Simeon the righteous man, Jonathan and the virtuous woman. They're all called good explicitly in the Bible. So unless you're going to say that the Bible is contradicting itself, then then no, not everybody is without goodness. Nobody else is the source of goodness is what is trying to be said here. And I'm not saying that other people being called good means that they were sinless. No, I wouldn't even say if the Bible called Mary good, it wouldn't mean that she's sinless. All I'm saying is that this verse does not say that Mary was a sinner. That's not what it's saying at all. Um, and then he also brought up Luke 2:48 where Mary says, "Why have you treated us so? Because she's confused as to where her son was." Right? She was looking after Jesus. Um, and we can actually get into the original Greek of uh Luke 2 uh 44 and Luke 2:48, but it actually says in the original Greek according to Bible Gateway that what Mary was doing was lawful. That's the Greek word used for suppose in Luke uh 244. It says that what is about to follow is a lawful action. Uh, so not knowing where something is is not the same as sin. Mary is not omnipotent. So of course she still asks Jesus's uh Jesus questions. like this verse does not in any way prove that Mary sinned. Um if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not within us. Likewise in uh 1 John 1:10, if we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not within us. Here James is not talking about everyone. Like very clearly uh Ryan said if if Mary read this verse, would would she say, "Well, no, I'm without sin." Yeah, of course you would say that because John actually distinguishes the sins of the people in this passage from the sins of everyone else. He does this explicitly in 1 John 2:2, which is right after 1 John 1:10 and 1 John 18. It says, "And he is the prop propitiation for our sins." So the sins being talked about in 1 John 1:8, "But not only for ours, but also the sins of the whole world." So obviously first John when it says sins is talking about the people receiving the letter from John. It's not saying every single person in the world. That's ridiculous. Um Romans 3:12, "No one does does good, know not one." Uh I don't even think uh Ryan brought this one up, but I thought I would address it because I'm sure it'll come up later. Paul here is actually quoting from Psalms 14 1-3, which says, "They have all turned aside together. They have become corrupt, and there is none who does good, not even one." Uh, this passage was written in the old covenant before Mary was born. So, of course, at that time, no one did good, not even one, because Mary wasn't born yet. Duh. Mary wasn't born yet. Why would an Old Testament passage make an exception for someone who hadn't been born yet? That wouldn't make any sense. She wasn't there. Um, and then I I have a few notes on the rest of what Ryan said. Um, he said, yeah, he quotes a bunch of Old Testament passages. He quotes from the Psalms. Quotes from um Ecclesiastes saying, "Look, this says that everybody sinned." Those are Old Testament passages, dude. That I mean, of course, that wouldn't apply to Mary because she wasn't born yet. That's like trying to say like when the Bible says that everybody was taken out by the flood that Mary was also taken out by the flood. No, it was written before she was born. Um he also brought up Luke 7:28, which says that there is none greater than John the Baptist, but he completely ripped that out of uh context. If you go to verse 26, which is right before verse 28, um it literally says that Jesus is talking about prophets. That whole leadup is talking about who is the greatest prophet. Mary wasn't a prophet. She was just the mother of God. Um Ryan tried to compare when Jesus like heals people and touches them to mean the same as Jesus living within the w the womb of Mary, which I think is absurd. like the the intimate closeness of living within something is completely different. Like like Mary's the ark of the covenant because she held the man of the law and the staff within her womb. Not like that's not the same as Jesus going out and touching someone's feet. Like I I'm I'm blown away that that was an argument that he made. He also said explicitly typology holds no weight. Does that mean Jesus isn't the mana? Does that mean Jesus isn't Aaron's staff who budded? Does that mean Jesus isn't the new law? Because Jesus is not called the law explicitly in the Bible, but there's typological parallels. Are you going to deny that Jesus is not the law? Saying that typology holds no weight is unbelievable. I can't name a single biblical scholar who would ever say something like that. Um, he also brought up Acts 20:28 where Christ uh saves the church by his blood. We agree Mary was saved by the Christ uh by Christ sacrifice. It just happened before she was born. why I made an entire point to talk about that in my opening statement. Um, and then he said that Protestants reject the doctrine of Mary. Does he do Ryan? Do you know that like all of the Protestant reformers believed in the sinlessness of Mary, right? Martin Luther, John Calvin, they write about this. I can pull up the quote from Martin Luther right now. Actually, hold on. Um, like these are people who started the Protestant Reformation and they say explicitly that Mary was sinless. Um, it is sweet and pious that the infusion of Mary's soul was affected without original sin and thus

From the first moment that she began to live, she was free from all sin. Uh, and then Martin Luther himself, Protestant reformer, started the Protestant Reformation, says she is full of grace so that she may be recognized without any sin. God's grace fills her with all the gifts that make her devoid of all sin. He also said in his presentation that, um, Basil, the early church father, Basil claimed that Mary sinned. Um, that's that's wrong. He actually explicitly says otherwise. Um, Basil says, "It is not right to accuse the mother of God of any fault or lack of faith." Ryan, where, where are you getting that from? I know that you quoted a scholar on that. Um, I would like to see your research. If that's not a ChatGPT quote, I would love to see more about that. Um, but yeah, I I would like to go over Ryan's clarifications of what I need to do to win. I must prove that Mary was sinless. I already did that. I must prove that she was always sinless. According to Rene Laurenton, that Greek scholar that I quoted, the perfect passive participle in the vocative form means that the state of grace that Mary had when she was greeted by the angel was permanent and perpetual from her creation. I already proved that. Um, I must prove that Mary keeps the entire law of Moses. Um, you can't show me a place where she doesn't keep the law of Moses, and I already proved that she was sinless. That falls under the law of Moses. She also gave birth to the law of Moses. Come on. Like, yeah, of course she kept it. She gave birth to him. Um, show Bible verses that don't apply to Mary. Yeah, like I've already shown that. I've shown that, uh, like Romans 3:23 does not apply to Mary. It was it was very easy to do that. Um, and then I must quote from the Bible. All of my arguments were made directly from scripture. I use *sola scriptura*. Don't have to to prove my point, but I did because that's what this debate is on. Likewise, it's not about the Catholic Church, so I don't know why Ryan is trying to argue against the Catholic Church. Um, I think that's all I have to say. Um, hopefully we can move away from wasting time on the catechism, um, councils, and popes. Thank you so much.

>> Well, thank you, Noah. That was, um, fantastic. Thank you for your 12-minute rebuttal there. And while I reset the timer and Ryan gets his stuff organized. Oh, another Bible question. Here we go. Multiple choice again. So, this will be a little bit easier. But thank you for being here. Thank you for the chats. I can see that you're behaving okay in there. I've had to sort of see the moderators lay hands on there a couple of people with slamming them with the timeout hammer. So, that's okay. Well done. You're behaving nicely. So, thank you for that. Um, now here we go with our question. What was the name of the high priest who questioned Jesus before his crucifixion? Was it Annas, Gamaliel, Nicodemus? Correct answers only. Fastest one takes out honors, and Ryan will put that up on the screen. Who is first? It looks like Boondog looks like it's got it in first. Oh, Eclipse Sonic has come in with Caiaphas. Well done, Eclipse Sonic. You take out bragging rights. Noah's going in there. He's pretty fast with the questions as well. But we are now going to hand it over to Ryan for the final rebuttal, and then after that, we'll explain how the cross-examination works. But you have 12 minutes when you start. Ryan, I will hit the button when you're ready. All yours, brother. Thank you. I'll get this ready. Okay. Thank you, Noah. Appreciate your rebuttal there and your opening statement. Now, the reason why I quoted from popes and no one said, "Why are you quoting from popes in the Catholic catechism?" Well, because remember, your church has defined the Immaculate Conception of Mary and saying that this is a required dogma to believe under the threat of penalties by law and even loss of salvation if you don't accept it. I think that's good for people to be aware even of the stakes here and the pressure that Noah is under why he believes this. He's not believing this from the Bible. I'm going to show you why in this, but he's believing because his church tells him how he has to. Now, remember, he had to do five things in this debate. I don't think he's done any of them so far, but I'm going to respond to his points. His major point was that he's from Luke 1:28, that Mary was called "favored one." Now, we love, I love Luke 1:28. It's a beautiful greeting from the angel to Mary, and he came to her and said, "Greetings, oh favored one, the Lord is with you." And so, yes, this Greek word *kecharitōmenē*, which comes from *charitoō*, the root word, as as Noah said, means simply "graced one" or "someone who's favored by God." And so we agree that Mary is favored by God. But where Noah's made some massive leaps is that there's nothing in this Greek word that means sinless. Noah will not be able to point to a single Greek lexicon, whether it be BDAG or any other ones, that says that this word *kecharitōmenē* or how the verb form is used here means sinless. And we see that interestingly, he tried to make the argument from Ephesians 1:5-7. He said, "He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. Amen. This is for all of us as Christians. If we have our faith in Christ, He's predestined us. We've got adopted to the praise of his glorious grace. Grace with which he has blessed us in the beloved." So, this word here, it's the same root word that's used, uh, with the greeting to Mary there. Now, Noah tried to get from there, "See, this is therefore the definition of what, uh, graced or blessed means, that it must mean adoption, forgiveness of sins, and even predestination." Now, this is simply how Paul is saying these are ways in which God has blessed us. But you can say "blessed" in other ways, like you're blessed with food every day, right? So, the context will determine what the grace or the blessing is. In this context, it is adoption, predestination, and, you know, the things he's mentioning here, forgiveness of sins. Now, it is really interesting in his rebuttal, he actually said that Mary received forgiveness of sins. Hold up. That would mean that Mary has sinned. The whole doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that she has no sin. She's always been without sin. She's been saved from ever sinning. That's what that Catholic doctrine is defined as. In Noah's statement, he said that Mary had been forgiven of her sins at the time when the angel or before the angel greeted her. And so I want to really stress here, nothing in that Greek phrase *kecharitōmenē* does it ever mean sinlessness. As I said, no lexicon ever mentions that. And the past perfect participle, what that simply means is it's happened in the past and its effects are still ongoing now. But Noah, that doesn't mean that it's happened from the time of that person's conception. The past could be two seconds before the angel arrives, not 30 years or 20 years like when Mary was born or conceived. Plus, even though the effects are ongoing, it doesn't prove the effects will always go on for the rest of Mary's life, right? So, for example, okay, so Mary gave birth to or bore Jesus in her womb, and you want to say that she was sinless during that time. Why would you necessitate that she's sinless then after she gives birth to Jesus Christ? There's nothing, uh, in nothing in the Bible that would ever indicate that she is. Now, his next argument was that, uh, that Mary is the new Eve. So, we've dealt with Luke 1:28, but Mary is the new Eve. That is not an argument that scripture mentions. It mentions in Romans 5 that through one man sin came to the world. That's clearly Adam. Adam is the man that sin came into the world through, not Eve. It's through Adam because he was the federal head. He was the representative of all humanity, not Eve. And how Christ is, you can say, is the new Adam. That's the point that Paul's making in Romans 5, but he never makes the case that there is a new Eve. He never mentions Mary at all in Romans 5, nor does any other, uh, writer of scripture. Now, he made the argument that the only times when Jesus spoke to Mary, it was calling her "woman," "woman," "woman." Not Mary, but "woman." Well, guess what? That argument doesn't really hold any weight because look what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman in John 4. "Woman, believe me." So, is Jesus calling the Samaritan woman a new Eve? What about the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:28? Jesus answered her, "Oh woman, great is your faith." Clearly, just the phrase or the term "woman" does not mean that you are the new Eve. Uh, in fact, in Genesis 3:15, he tried to use this as a case to say that Mary will be a new Eve. Remember, this is part of the curse that was given to the serpent. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Now, let's look at the context. Context is always key in understanding a passage. Who is this woman? Literally, just go two verses before. "Then the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this that you have done?'" What is who's this woman? This is Eve. She's just eaten from the tree she shouldn't have eaten from. So, clearly the word "woman" in the context is referring to Eve, which is actually, interestingly, what the Catholic catechism says as well. It says that this this is referring to Eve, not not referring to Mary. Now, I'll put enmity. He said that enmity means like complete hostility, complete opposition. Now, I would say, yes, there is opposition between, uh, uh, Eve and Eve's offspring and Satan because look who got Eve got tempted and deceived by the serpent. Of course, there's hostility between the both of them. And Noah's argument is, "Well, if if Eve was a sinner, then there's not complete hostility." Yeah, there is. There absolutely is. In fact, that same word in, uh, in the in the Hebrew *eybah* is used elsewhere. It it's used in Numbers 35. It says, "If in enmity, I'll bring it up on the screen here. If in enmity, like a person struck this person down, then he's a murderer." So, if he's done it with hatred, if he's done it with enmity towards a person, he's guilty of murder. But if he hasn't done it with enmity, he's only guilty of manslaughter. And so that's two sinners having enmity with each other. And so you can clearly have enmity between Eve and Satan, two sinners. It doesn't necessitate Mary being perfect. Plus, just look at any Hebrew lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs or others. *Eybah* simply means hostility, hatred, or enmity. It doesn't mean, uh, anything more than that. Now, his next argument that he brought up was, um, okay. But who's the offspring in Genesis 3:15? Well, remember who what Eve was? Eve was described as the mother of all the living. And so, therefore, yes, clearly the one who crushed the serpent's head was Christ. But do you realize every person can say that they are an offspring of Eve because we're down the line from her, right? So Christ clearly has crushed or bruised the head of the serpent through the crucifixion. That's what it's talking about there. Uh, it's not talking about Mary. Now, he made the argument about that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. I thought this argument was not very strong at all. Okay, first of all, big problem. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention Mary's the Ark of the New Covenant. So, he's having to do a lot of mental gymnastics to support this case. We're not supposed to put our own understanding of the Bible. We're supposed to get from the Bible what it's actually saying. Secondly, the Ark wasn't holy before God dwelt in it. The Ark was only made holy by God's presence being in it, not before God's presence dwelt in it. And so, like, when they were constructing the Ark of the Covenant with wood and gold and stuff like that, could they touch it? Yes, they could, because God's presence yet didn't yet dwell there. And so, this argument, even if it meant that she was sinless, would not prove that she's always been sinless. But, if anything, it would only show that maybe during the time when she was pregnant, but not before that, and definitely not after that either. Right? Right? So why would it why would it carry on to afterwards? If God's presence is no longer in Mary, why would she still need to be perfect then? Noah, you see his argument, even if we were to grant his argument, which we're not, we're not, but even if we were, it wouldn't prove that she's always been sinless. Plus, there's a whole lot of massive problems of dissimilarities in this typological argument. So, we see that the Ark was constructed by humans, right, with gold, acacia wood. Does that mean that Mary was constructed by humans with wood and and gold? The Ark required atonement sacrifice yearly. Did Mary require a yearly sacrifice to be put on top of her on the mercy seat? No. The Ark had to be carried by poles and only by the Levites. Was Mary only carried by people and with poles and only Levites? No. In fact, Mary wasn't even a Levite. She was of the tribe of Judah. So, just the symbolism doesn't work. Noah, you're you're hurting your back, I think, with this. Um, touching touching the Ark resulted in death, and yet clearly people touched Mary. Joseph would have touched Mary, and he didn't die. And the the Ark was placed in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, and Mary wasn't placed in the Temple. So, there's numerous, there's even more I can go, but clearly Mary is not the Ark of the New Covenant like Noah suggested here. Now, he tried to make an argument of Revelation 11. It talks about the Ark being up in heaven. It never connects that with the woman that's in Revelation 12. And it never mentions, even if the woman in Revelation 12 was Mary, which I don't think it is, but even if it was, it never says that she's sinless. Now, he's like in Mark 10:18, "No one is good apart from God." He was trying to say, "Oh, that just means the source of goodness is only from God." No, that's not what Jesus' point is. You can't just change what Jesus is saying here, Noah. Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good?" So he's challenging this man who's come up to him and says, "Good teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?" He's saying, "Why do you call me good?" He's not saying, "Where's the source of goodness come from?" He's saying, "Why are you calling me good? Are you recognizing that I'm God?" He's challenging the man's understanding. And so Jesus makes a clear point, but no one's good but God. So why'd you call me good? No one's good but God. And so if Mary was good, he would have to have her as an exception here. He doesn't list her as an exception. And we know Jesus is not going to mislead people. So, therefore, this is a strong argument to show that Mary is also not good. And the burden of proof is upon Noah to prove that Mary is sinless. He hasn't done this so far in this debate. Now, he's tried to say in Luke 2, um, you know, "Why, why did you treat us so when Jesus left behind in the Temple?" And he's saying, "Oh, that wasn't disrespect or that wasn't sinful." And he quoted Bible Gateway, what just that's that's an authoritative source. Now, um, notice he didn't just say she didn't just say to Jesus, "Oh, where have you been, Jesus?" That's a neutral statement. He says, "Why have you treated us so?" That is something which she's charging him with wrong. And even she was again negligent in not looking after where her child was. Um, and then quickly, in Martin Luther, he actually did. He was inconsistent, but at different times, he did say that Mary had sinned. I can give you some quotations for that, plus Basil's quote, but I've run out of time. Thank you for your listening.

Awesome. Thank you, Ryan. And that completes our rebuttals from both sides. And before we get into the cross-examination. Oh, there's our music for another Bible trivia question. Here we go. Multiple choice. Which Old Testament book tells the story of a man who lost everything yet remained faithful to God? Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs, or Hosea? Fastest answer takes out bragging rights. And Rhino, watch out for that first answer to come in. That's correct. I'll put that up on the screen if you can, that'll be awesome. And Big Man King is taking out honors there for that question for history. And then Eclipse is up there in the leaderboard as well. Okay, gentlemen. We are about to get into the cross-examination. And what that will entail is that you both get 20 minutes each. And I'm just changing my timer there for that as I try to explain that. Um, now, the person conducting the cross-examination has control of the time. So, you hold the kind of procedural superiority here. So, your role is to ask questions continuously rather than deliver speeches. So, you may make short statements, but you need to finish it as a setup for the question and whatever it is you say, then finish it with, like, you know, "Would you agree?" or "Is that correct?" Do we understand there, gentlemen? Yes. Okay. So, Noah, we're going to throw that over to you. Your 20 minutes will start when you start speaking. Thank you, man.

>> All right, Ryan. Uh, in regards to Luke 1:28, you said that nothing in the Greek means sinlessness. Do, do you remember saying that?

>> Correct. Yeah. So, it means if you look at any Greek lexicon,

>> No, sorry. That that that's all I just wanted to see if you recall saying that, uh, statement.

>> Yeah, it means it means, yeah, grace by God or favor by God.

>> Okay. Can you tell us what a participle is?

>> Yeah, a participle is a modification of the verb. All right, so we see that it's when it's used as a, um, it could be used as an adjective. All right, and so this is a past perfect participle, meaning that it's happened in the past and its effects are ongoing, but it doesn't mean it's permanent in the future, nor that it's always been for that person's life.

>> Do you recall how, uh, Daniel B. Wallace defined the perfect passive participle used to describe Mary?

>> Yes. Um, he said, quote was, uh, the perfect, I think this is the quote that you stated in your opening. "The perfect tense is used to describe a completed action whose effects are felt in the present." That's what I believe you said. And so I would agree, perfect tense, it's happened in the past and its effects are still going in the present. Doesn't mean forever in the future, nor that it's from that person's birth.

>> Perfect. And how, what, what does grace, the grace of God, do for a Christian?

>> Does it justify us?

>> Well, the word grace simply just means unmerited favor.

>> Does the grace? You're not answering the question. Did the, does the grace of God justify Christians?

>> The word grace can be used in different contexts. So, we all receive different kinds of grace. I receive different grace to another Christian. But in terms of if you're talking about the grace of justification, then yes, we are justified by faith.

>> The grace, the grace used in Ephesians 1 to, does that justify?

>> He defines us, what, what he means by that, he's blessed us and then he lists a whole lot of those blessings, adoption.

>> No, I'm not, I'm not talking about the blessings. Ryan, you're not answering the question. Does the grace described in Ephesians 1, *kecharitōmenē*, where it literally says that Christ has given us grace through his sacrifice, does that justify sinners?

>> So, that part, the reason why I'm saying blessed is because that's how it's translated. He has blessed, blessed us. That is the word you're referring to right there. It's translated as blessed us here in at least this translation and most other translations. And so, therefore, he's blessed us. In in Ephesians, he's mentioning predestination, adoption, forgiveness of sins, and there's other ways that he's blessed us. Even the spiritual gifts are graces from God.

>> Not, and does, I don't think I'm talking spiritual gifts.

>> I'm not talking about the English. I'm not sure why you're not willing to say that grace, the grace of God, justifies sinners. I, I can't believe that's a point of contention right now.

>> The reason, let me explain. So, I, I do agree. We're justified by God's grace through faith. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for God's glory alone, 100%. But just because the word grace appears here or elsewhere in the Bible, you've got to check the context to see what the favor, unmerited favor's talking about. Does that make sense?

>> Okay. So, I, I, we can move on. I think, I think it, you're just avoiding the question, to be completely honest.

>> At all.

>> Um, can you tell us what it means for a verb to be in the aorist form?

>> Yeah, aorist simply means it's an action that has happened in the past and it's not specifying about whether it's ongoing or not now. It doesn't make a comment on it, but it's actually it's happened in the past.

>> But it's also timeless?

>> What's happened in the past, or we can say it's happened in the past, and then it's maybe the example, "I drove my car," is in the aorist, um, verb form, compared to the perfect verb form would be like, "I have driven my car." That's the difference.

>> So when Christ graced us in Ephesians 1, do you have any idea what it might have been referencing?

>> The grace of God.

>> We got to, we've got to read Ephesians 1 to see what he says. Like, he mentions that he's blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. He chose us in him that we should be holy and blameless. And I don't think we're sinless right now. At least I'm not. Um, he predestined us for adoption as sons.

>> Okay. So the grace,

>> So the grace, as you are saying, that Ephesians is talking about is the forgiveness of trespasses, the redemption, and adoption to Christ. That's what Ephesians is referencing.

>> If I think it's actually even more than that. I think you're limiting. It's saying "every spiritual blessing."

>> And the blamelessness.

>> So that would, yeah, that would include, well, okay, I've got that right now. He's actually saying we've got that right now. Now, we know that Christians sin.

>> You sin, I sin. And so, therefore, this does not mean sinless.

>> No, you're missing the point. So, when someone, it says "blameless," it's talking about our right standing in God. So, would you agree that Mary had right standing with God before the birth of Christ?

>> I would say yes, she did because she rejoiced in God as savior. She had faith. Yes.

>> Okay. So, she was in righteousness, in right standing with God before the birth of Christ?

>> Of course. Yeah. She had faith in Christ.

>> Had Christ made his sacrifice on the cross yet?

>> Well, just like Abraham believed God has counted him as righteousness, and Christ hadn't died yet. And so, the reason is because God could justify Abraham and Mary on the basis of the future.

>> It's not just righteousness. It's the adoption. It's the forgiveness of all trespasses. It's the *amōmos*, the blamelessness, according to the BDAG Greek lexicon. Are you saying that Mary had that?

>> Whatever we have now is what Mary had because she had faith. So, if I'm not perfect, and every Christian today on this earth is not perfect, then Mary was not perfect either.

>> So, in your video on how we are justified, you said that when we go up to meet God, he will look at us and he will see a sinless, he will see Christ standing in front of us. So, which is sinlessness, correct, when we go and stand before God?

>> Oh, yeah.

>> So, Mary, in the, so, hold on, hold on. So, hold on. So, in the eyes of God, Mary had sinlessness before Christ was born?

>> The same way God can look at me right now and see that I'm blameless because he can look at me through the lens of Christ. But that does that mean that I don't sin? I still sin. Paul says, "I keep on doing stuff I know I shouldn't do." And yet Paul knew that he was justified and there's no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. Okay. But then it's in the perfect passive participle form, which means that it's fully endowed and it's not just, "Oh, this is what it looks like." It's, "This is fully endowed perpetually and permanently."

>> I'd like to move.

>> No statement. No, no, no, no, no. If you make a statement, I have to be able to respond to it like that because remember, that's what the rule Paul read out in the rules. Remember? So, you have to say like, "Do you agree?" I said, "No, I don't agree with that." Because again, nothing in a perfect past participle sense is it meaning that's continuing to the future forever. It just means it's it's happening now. It's like still in effect now, but not forever. And it doesn't imply that it's always been to the past from that person's conception.

>> Okay, awesome. Um, for going forward, I'm going to ask this in the question form. I would appreciate it if you leave the monitoring to, uh, Paul. Let him moderate the, uh, debate. Um, if I'm breaking a rule,

>> I understand, but like,

>> Yeah, that's not that's not your job. You're my opponent, not my moderator. I appreciate it. Um, so, in Leviticus 12:2-4, it says that a woman after giving birth to a child, there needs to be a 33-day period before she can go into the sanctuary or before she can touch any holy objects. Do you, are you aware of that verse?

>> Yeah. So the verse here, uh, that if she conceives a male child, she's unclean in seven days. Um, and then the male has to be circumcised, and then 33 days of purifying, and then it's, I think it's longer for a female if she has a female child.

>> Yep, 66 days. But do you see that, uh, part there in verse four? "She shall not touch anything holy."

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So, did Mary touch Jesus after she gave birth?

>> Uh, she, yeah, she would have touched Jesus.

>> Is Jesus holy?

>> Okay. But this is a different thing. Okay. So, when it says, "You shall not touch anything holy," what is the context in Leviticus? The context is clearly the vessels that are associated with the Tabernacle.

>> No. You're, you're reading into the text something that isn't there. It says, "shall not touch anything holy." That is an all-encompassing term. She shall not touch anything.

>> Well, think of it this way, Noah. Would I wouldn't say that the ground is unholy, right? And and so,

>> I would say it's holy. Are you saying that the ground is holy?

>> Well, in the sense of, does it have sin? I don't think the ground has sin.

>> That's not, I'm not talking about sin. I'm talking about is it a holy, you haven't answered my question then. Let's, let's figure out what I want to know. What do you mean by "is Jesus holy?" That's my question.

>> I'm holy as well.

>> That's not, I'm not talking about you, Ryan. Is Jesus holy?

>> Jesus is holy. Every Christian is holy. As as,

>> We're not talking about every Christian says there are holy brothers.

>> Ryan, you're just filibustering. Jesus is holy. Yes.

>> Jesus is holy. Yes.

>> Okay. And Leviticus says that a woman should be stoned. That's followed up by Numbers, uh, Numbers 3, if she touches anything holy. So, answer the question. Did Mary touch Jesus when she gave birth to him?

>> Uh, I would say it makes sense, yes. And you know who also touched, uh, Jesus? Simeon in Luke chapter 2.

>> Hold up. Hold up. But if, if a sinful creature, you're saying a sinful creature can't?

>> No, I'm not talking about a sinful creature. I'm talking about the law of Leviticus that says if a woman gives birth, she cannot touch holy objects or she will be stoned.

>> So, where is Mary stoned?

>> Show me in the New Testament.

>> Even if this was the case, this is not proving her sinlessness. Noah, if anything, you're going to say that Mary's law.

>> No, but if the best that your argument would do would prove that Mary's broken the Mosaic law. It's not an argument to show that she's sinless.

>> No. Oh, Ryan, are you saying, like, like, clarify your point. You haven't answered most of my questions. You're saying just, just give me a yes or a no. Is Jesus holy?

>> Was Mary? I would say according, according to this law, she would be unclean because she gave birth and she's unclean for seven days. I assume that you'd agree with that. Oh, she cannot touch.

>> And so, if she's under the Mosaic law, then if, if your argument is true, that that means she can't touch Jesus. Therefore, you think Mary broke the Mosaic law?

>> No. Oh my goodness. I, what I'm arguing is that she was not unclean because she was sinless. And this verse is about sinful women.

>> Mary was not?

>> Hold up. Hold up. So, she wasn't under the Mosaic law? Is that what you're saying? Because it doesn't say here about sinful women.

>> Ryan, stop asking me questions. This is my cross-examination. If, if a woman, a woman conceives and bears a male child, it doesn't say if a sinful woman, just says if a woman. Now, is Mary a woman? Yes.

>> It says that she will be unclean because of the birth.

>> And did you say, are you saying that, are you saying that Jesus' birth was unclean?

>> Did Mary give birth to Jesus?

>> Stop asking me questions and answer mine. Ryan, are you saying yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus? She is a woman. She conceived. She bore a male child, and she was unclean for seven days. And what did she do on the eighth day?

>> So, you think that the birth of Jesus was?

>> She offered a sacrifice.

>> So, you think that the birth of Jesus was unclean?

>> Well, it it made her unclean according to what scriptures I believe scripture. I don't know if you do, but I believe it because it says a woman.

>> Ryan. Ryan, stop trying to accuse me of not believing in scripture and just answer the question.

>> Do you believe this verse? I believe this verse.

>> So, do you believe that the?

>> She was a woman.

>> Stop. Stop asking questions. Stop.

>> I'm not saying I'm, I'm not asking. Do you believe this verse? Was a woman?

>> You said, "Do you believe this verse?" I believe this verse.

>> Awesome. Now, let me ask a question in my cross-examination, and please answer it. Was the birth of Jesus unclean?

>> It made her unclean according to Leviticus.

>> Well, no. Was it, was it? How about this? Was it sin?

>> And it probably was pretty dirty in a sense that, like, like giving birth to a child, it's not like very clean.

>> We're not talking about physical dirt. You know that.

>> Okay. In terms of ceremonial, if you're talking about ceremonial, the answer is yes. She was unclean according to this verse. And that is why on the eighth day, she had to offer a sacrifice for her. And and that was two turtle doves. If you read Luke 2, it says that she offered two turtle doves. And that's when Simeon grabbed Jesus.

>> You're going to bury yourself. Luke, Luke, Luke 2 actually says that they offer a sin offering for their sins.

>> Yeah. It's in the Greek masculine.

>> Which would actually be Joseph and Jesus because they would include Jesus. It talks about the whole family. It's in the Greek plural masculine.

>> Ryan, you, you're not understanding the Greek and you're running away from the verse that we were just talking about where you said that the birth of Christ was unclean. You need to answer my question.

>> Read verse.

>> This is how cross-examination works.

>> I understand. But verse 6 tells us very clearly that he had to offer a turtle dove for a sin offering. Who's going to offer it after the days of her purifying? She looks, it's the pronoun "she" in the female. You see this? She's.

>> I understand what I understand what the Hebrew says in Leviticus. Are you aware that Jesus actually brought the dove?

>> It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that in Luke 2. I'm, I'm going based on what the scripture says here in Leviticus 12:6. It says, "She shall."

>> Bring that point.

>> Um, this is unbelievable. Can you, can you throw up, uh, Revelation 12 for me on my slides?

>> Sure. Or just throw up the, yeah, my slideshow if, if that's possible.

>> Awesome. Um, so I would like to read Revelation 12. Which says, "A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars on her head, who was with child and cried out in labor. She gave birth to a male child destined to rule all nations with an iron rod. And the dragon, failing to devour the child or defeat the woman, went off in fury to make war on the woman and the rest of her offspring who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus." Who is this woman?

>> Well, usually most early church fathers and even many commentators will say that this is either referring to Israel or referring to the church. And I think the reason why I'd say that is because it says that he's crowned with 12. She's crowned with 12 stars on her head, which represents the dream that Joseph had back in the book of Genesis.

>> I agree. Catholics believe that it's that it's the church and Mary. So, but you would, we can actually just run with your understanding that it's the church. Do you see that, uh, second verse there where it says, "who was with child and cried out in labor?"

>> Yeah. Which shows I think that it's definitely not Mary because Catholics usually believe Mary had no pain in childbirth. So that would mean that,

>> This woman has pain in childbirth.

>> So that would mean that Israel or the church had pain in labor. Are you agreeing to that?

>> Yeah, we actually see the agony that of Israel of, we definitely see the agony when, um, against oppression and the Romans and other people. So there was great pain.

>> I agree with you. Okay. So, in Isaiah 66:7, a messianic prophecy, it says, "Before she was in labor, she gave birth. Before pain came upon her, she delivered a son." Who is the woman being described here?

>> Well, let's check the context. So, in Isaiah chapter 66, let me check the context here. So, it says here, I'll read out a couple because I think we need to look at the context. So, maybe from verse two, "All these things my hand has made, so that these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: He who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. He who slaughters an ox like one who kills a man. He who sacrifices a lamb like one who breaks a dog's neck. He who presents a grain offering like one who offers pig's blood. He who offers makes a memorial offering of frankincense like one who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways and their soul delights in their abominations. I also will choose harsh treatment for them and bring their fears upon them. Because when I called, no one answered. When I spoke, they did not listen. But they did what was evil in my eyes and chose that in chose that in which I did not delight. Hear the word of the Lord. This is verse five. You who tremble at his word. Your brothers who hate you and cast you out for my name's sake. Um, you have said, 'Let the Lord be glorified, that we may see your joy.'"

>> Ryan, this, this is, this is a lot, man. And you're running out my time.

>> Well, I'm just trying to honestly, if you want, if you want to ask me who this woman is, I have to read the context. I can't just say, "Oh, yeah, I'm just tell you the context."

>> Keep reading. Keep reading. Sure.

>> The sound of an uproar from the city, a sound from the temple, the sound of the Lord rendering recompense to his enemies.

>> "Before she was in labor, she gave birth. Before her pain came upon her, she delivered a son." Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such a thing? Shall a lamb be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor, there we go. It's Zion. This is not talking about Mary.

>> Zion was in labor. She brought forth her children.

>> This is talking about Mary.

>> I, I'm not saying.

>> Zion represents Jerusalem. It represents Jerusalem.

>> The people of God.

>> Well, it represents Jerusalem specifically. And then,

>> So, so who is the son that was delivered?

>> Well, that's I'm having a look. Shall I bring to the point of birth and not cause and not cause to bring forth? Shall I who cause to bring forth shut the womb, says the Lord? Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all who love her. Rejoice with her in you, all you who mourn over her.

>> Right. Ryan, are you just going to read the entire, entire chapter? Like, I'm not, I'm not trying to interrupt you. You're wasting a lot of time.

>> I understand. But if you're going to ask me a question that I would say I want to find out because if, if you're hinging on what my answer is, I need to find out what this passage is saying.

>> Okay. So, can you just say that you don't know who the woman is then?

>> Well, yeah. I can say, look, I, I will do further research on who that woman is, but you can see it's very, a lot of symbolism going on here. Before you've got to be careful of making an argument from.

>> In Song of Solomon 6:8-10, a messianic prophecy, it says, "Sixty are queens and eighty concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the only daughter of her mother, the favorite of the one who bore her. The young woman saw her and called her blessed." That's a reference to Luke 1:42. The queens and concubines also, and they praised her. "Who is this that looks like the dawn, beautiful as the moon, and bright as the sun?" We can go back to Revelation 12 real quick before you answer, where it literally says, "with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars, a woman clothed with the sun." Okay, who is this woman?

>> Go read, if you go read Song of Solomon, it's very clear. He's talking about the Shulamite woman here. Solomon is speaking about his wife and he's speaking about how beautiful she is. Describes her bodily features, how her neck is so beautiful and her belly is like a sack of wheat and things like that. And so it's just talking, it's a love letter between Solomon and his wife.

>> You're saying that Solomon's wife was perfect according to the word of God?

>> Notice that when, even today, people use that sort of language, "Honey, I think you're perfect. I think you're lovely." No, but it wasn't, it wasn't, it wasn't just, "Have you read Song of Solomon? Very romantic. It's very, it's very romantic. It's not just about."

>> Ryan, if you think that the whole point, stop, if you think that the whole point of the Song of Solomon, the book of the Bible, is to show how Solomon liked his wife, that's unbelievable. Do you think according to?

>> Hold on, hold up. What's wrong with that? What I don't think there's anything wrong with that because it shows that God is not against.

>> Asking me questions. Maybe I understand. Okay, I'll make a statement. I don't think God is against sex in any way. And I think the book of Song of Solomon is a beautiful love letter between Solomon and his wife. If anyone reads it, they'll be like, "Wow, look at the affection they have towards each other and the poetic language." And so, if you're going to this, you know, people use this to say that Muhammad is in in the Bible by saying, "Oh, Muhammad's mentioned in the book of Song of Solomon." No, it's not. It's talking about Solomon's physical descriptions and also this woman's physical.

>> I'm not talking about Muhammad, Ryan. You're you're going all over the place. Please just try.

>> To get Mary from the book of Song of Solomon, which is quite funny and hilarious.

>> Okay, I'm glad you think it's funny. Do you think that Solomon's wife was perfect according to God? Because again, this isn't just Solomon that wrote this word according to God.

>> "My perfect one." This is the word. Are you saying that the word of God isn't according to God?

>> This is Solomon writing. It's recording Solomon's speech.

>> It's the Holy Spirit writing through Solomon. It's the Holy Spirit.

>> The Holy Spirit also records different things that people say. It records, you know, uh, you know, I don't know where my brother is like Cain's saying, "Am I my brother's keeper?" It records things. It doesn't necessarily say that this is from, it's not like the Quran, which is like just the speech.

>> Why are we talking about this?

>> Because I don't think you're understanding how to read the Bible at the moment, Noah. Because this is, if you read the book of Song of Solomon,

>> That's fine. That's fine.

>> Song of Solomon is recording the speech of every love letter between him

>> And his wife. Do you think that all of these parts where it says they called her blessed, that's obviously a reference to Luke? Do you think where it says "beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun," which is like almost word for word from what we read in Revelation 12, do you think that's all just a coincidence?

>> I don't think Revelation 12 even speaks about Mary being s.

>> I'm not talking about Mary. I'm just saying, do you think that it's a coincidence that there's all of these connections?

>> I think the connections far more with the dream that Joseph had, um, with the 12 stars bowing down to him. That's more the connection rather than an obscure reference from the book of Solomon, which is a love letter between Solomon and his wife. You're stretching here, man. You're really stretching.

>> I really don't think I am because you are yet to answer one question this entire debate like directly.

>> You're jumping all over the place.

>> You're you're talking about Islam. You're talking about just random stuff that does not, like, this is ridiculous.

>> All right, time's up. Time's up.

>> All right, boys. Time is up. And, Noah, I did give a bit of grace time there when Ryan was answering, sort of reading out that verse. So, I did stop the clock there for for a minute or two just for that to happen. But I think moving forward, if, um, if the question is going to be asked, and at least let the other person respond with context as well and understanding context. I think that helps us sort of get through to the correct answer instead of just trying to parry-pick a question and then waiting for that answer when it could be correct or incorrect if it's outside of context. Uh, if we can just keep that in mind moving forward, that'd be awesome. Um, oh, here we go. We've got another question here from the Bible trivia. So, we're just going to take a breath, uh, while Ryan gets himself ready. Um, multiple choice. Which judge defeated the Midianites with only 300 men? Was it Samson, Gideon, Jephthah, or Ehud? And the first one getting that correct, we'll take out honors for bragging rights on that first question. And it looks like it's going to, let me see. I can see VI. Oh, there's a few correct answers in there, but the first one I saw is VI. So, correct guess there, taking out Gideon, taking.

out bragging rights. Um, so gentlemen, yes, let's thank you for being respectful with each other. And, um, we are Christians after all. So let's, uh, practice patience there as well. And, uh, good love showing there to each other. So, Lord, um, we thank you for this chat that we're having at the moment. Um, we are going to put 20 minutes on the clock. And so, Ryan, be respectful there with Noah. Um, allow Noah to understand the context of the question. If he bounces it back at you, if I see any, uh, Bible reading going more than it needs to be, I'll pause the clock just to get it through so that it gives us both a chance to get the point fully across. But you have 20 minutes. Off you go.

All right. Thank you for that. Now, Noah, you mentioned that Mary got forgiveness of sins. Is that correct?

Uh, I said that Mary received the grace, um, that was given by the blood of Christ on the cross. I believe that that was that was given to her, but I don't think that she committed any personal sins or had any original sin and then was forgiven of that in the normative means of salvation. No.

Okay. Okay. So then why would she need the blood of Jesus to cover for her if she had no sins?

Because if Mary, like I said in that beginning opening statement with the pit of sin, if Mary did not have the blood of Christ to prevent her from falling into that pit of sin, she would have fallen into sin. Because this is not according to Mary's glory, her goodness, or her power. It's all according to Christ. It's his power. It's his blood that saved her. It just happened before she was ever created.

Okay. But what does the blood of Jesus do in stopping somebody from sin?

What does it do in stopping somebody from sin? It, it fully justifies. According to Jesus in John 6, it says that whoever drinks of his blood will have eternal life. Um, and you shall never perish if you drink of his blood. And drinking of his blood, I would, I would say that even you admit that that would be receiving the sacrifice of Christ in your heart.

Not not with the Eucharist, but yeah, with, um,

I didn't say the Eucharist.

Trusting in Christ. Yeah. Okay. Um, so I, I would see, and tell me what you think of this. I would see that when we say that we're justified by his blood, it means that he died in our place. Getting because the wages of sin is death. And so he died so that I don't have to eternally die in hell. And so then if Mary had no sin, in what sense is she justified by his blood if she doesn't deserve the wages of sin?

Yeah. So justification does not always mean that you did something wrong in the first place. Um, for example, we would say that a criminal, right? If he is set free by a judge, he would be saved by that judge and then he would be justified. Um, but there's also people who never committed crimes. Those people are justified. They never committed the crime. So it's, it's similar with Mary. Another great example is, um, like kind of like a trust fund. Um, the same grace can be given to two different people. One person right here, um, they, they live their life, they go into debt, they go to college, and then a trust fund is given to them, and they can pay off all of their debt. Now they're neutral. Likewise,

talking about the blood, I'm just talking about the blood.

I'm, I'm giving analogies for the blood.

So the blood though, when I'm saying the blood means he died in my place, I should die for my sins, Jesus died in my place, that's what I'm, what it means to be justified by his blood. So in what sense has Jesus' blood covered for her?

Yeah. So, the blood of Christ is not simply this legalistic, oh, Jesus died in your place. Um, and it seems like you're airing on almost like a side of PSA, penal substitutionary atonement. You're not quite there, but, but that's not even something that I hold to. But I would, I would say that the blood of Christ is not a legalistic, Jesus died in your place. This is how it has to be. The blood of Christ does so much more than that. It can save someone outside of time, like we showed in that passage from Romans.

Yeah, I don't, I'm not sure if you're actually telling me though how the blood actually is for her. You're just saying it prevents it from sin. But why does that need blood? You haven't given me a reason for that specifically.

So the blood of Christ is the blood of the lamb. If you want to go back to like the Passover meal, right? The blood of the lamb is what prevents the angel of death from going over your household and taking a son.

Okay. So likewise, Mary had the blood of Christ which prevents the angel of death, which could be analogous to sin in this situation. So in the first, in that pass, but in that passive analogy, appreciate you bringing that up. It does mention like the firstborn should die, but the animal dies in their place so they don't have to die. So should Mary die for her sins and, and therefore Jesus covers it so that she doesn't have to die for her sins?

Yeah. So Mary would have had to die for her sins had Jesus never died on the cross, but she didn't have to commit sin. She didn't have to die for sins because Jesus's sacrifice was applied to her before she was ever conceived. Is there, is there like a disconnect? Am I not explaining that?

Yeah, I'm just not sure how you're seeing that, how that actually applies his death to her account if she doesn't deserve to die. But what would you say in regards to Mary? Could she actually pray the Lord's Prayer? Could she pray the Lord's Prayer?

Yeah, of course.

Okay. The Lord's Prayer says, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." So, how could she pray that prayer?

Yeah. So, us is a communal term. So, it could be talking about the sins of the church. She could say, "Forgive us." That's actually how Catholics use it in mass. It's not talking necessarily about your personal sins. It's talking about the sins of,

us. Would us include the person who is praying?

Not necessarily. Because I, I say the Our Father a lot after going to confession. So wouldn't it make sense then for, for her to say, "Forgive them of their trespasses as they forgive others," but not "forgive us of our trespasses" if she personally had no sin?

No. Because she's going to recite it the way that Jesus said. So because she's not a sinner.

Why would she need to recite it if she actually has no sin?

Because Jesus said this is how you should pray.

Which would imply, wouldn't that imply that all humans then need forgiveness of their sins? I, I feel like you're kind of playing like word play semantics because again, us does not mean I particularly. So, for example, if, if I'm on, um, a highway, right? And I, I say, "Hey, God, please protect us," referencing all the people on the highway, protect us. Don't let our wheels fall.

Would that include you as well?

It could, but it, it doesn't have to.

It would.

Otherwise, you say them. If you say, "Please protect us," you're including yourself in that prayer. So Mary would have to be including herself in "forgive us our trespasses," which proves

forgive us does not always have to include the person. It's forgive us, especially because Jesus was not talking to Mary when he said the Lord's Prayer.

I can still recite it.

Can you give me an example of where it would not include Mary? Like if she says, "Forgive us," if she's not including,

she was sinless. Again, that's your presupposition. But can you give me any Greek lexicon that defines *charito* as being completely sinless your entire life?

Yeah. So, you're, that's kind of a, a specious, uh, question to ask, and I'll explain why. Because you're asking the Greek lexicon, which is a reference to all Greek literature, a, a word basis for all Greek literature that is not focusing solely on the Bible. Because grace can mean one thing outside of the Bible that it does not mean within the Bible. For example, if I say, "Hey, my mom had grace on me. She didn't punish me for something." That's not the same as the grace that I received from God. So, I think it's best to go to the Bible to define the word grace. Because grace is used uniquely within the Bible. So, when we go to Ephesians one and it says,

Do you not realize that? Do not realize that Greek lexicons do not just refer to literature outside of the Bible, but they actually also refer to literature all within the Bible to figure out what those terms mean. Do you understand that?

Yeah. Yeah. No, I understand that they can be referenced to just the Bible alone. And I've actually given you a passage. I can cite you many Catholic Greek lexicons, many Catholic scholars who say that Mary is sinless because of that Ephesians 1 verse, like brother Peter Diamond. He makes a very beautiful argument. So I'm asking for a Greek lexicon. So I'm talking about even BDAG. You cited BDAG earlier on today. If you have a look at *charito* in *charito* in BDAG, do you agree that it does not say sinless, but just simply means favor?

You're asking for a Greek lexicon. I'm offering a higher power, something way more authoritative, which is the Bible itself in Ephesians, which defines that word grace in a biblical term as to mean sinlessness. *Amomos*, as used in Jude 1:24. Uh, that's not what, uh, I do not see how you can make that connection in Ephesians 1 to being, this is what *charito* means. If *charito* meant that, then would not the Greek lexicons define it that way?

You, you actually talked about in our cross-examination that the grace being talked about meant to be blameless, *amomos* in Ephesians 1:4. It meant to have redemption. It meant to be an adopted son or daughter of Christ. You said that. You said that that's what the Bible verse was talking about. Okay. So again, I'm citing Ephesians 1. You're citing a lexicon. I'm citing Ephesians 1. I think mine has more. Check it with the Bible. Yo, I'm quoting from the Bible.

I don't think you actually, don't think you've actually done any study in Greek to know how these lexicons work. But I want to ask you this, that with Ephesians 1, if we are the ones who have adoption, forgiveness of sins, u, those sort of beautiful things, do we still sin as Christians today?

Um, no, not when we receive the fullness of the grace talked about in Ephesians 1, which is in the beatific vision of heaven.

It, in Ephesians 1, where does it mention that this is only for a future thing and not something that's already happened in the past?

Well, it's talking about the fullness of grace that Christ has given us and which he has graced, right? And this grace is now accepted.

He has graced in a past tense or future tense?

Would you say that right now you're receiving the fullness of grace of God?

I have, I have received grace upon grace. I have received so much grace upon from God.

But, but the fullness of it?

This God's going to keep giving me grace for the rest of my life.

Not the fullness.

But the thing is this. This is the point though. Have a look in Ephesians. I'll bring it up on the screen just so you can see it.

"He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." This is past tense here in the Beloved. So then if this is, and this is the word for *charito*, this is literally the word for *charito*. It's past tense, and this refers to every Christian in their current state. Then do we as Christians right now still sin?

I, I don't, I don't think you understood why I brought Ephesians 1 into this in, in the first place. I understand my question. Do we as Christians right now still sin? That's my question to you.

Yeah, of course not. But we will not sin when we receive the fullness of grace. Or sorry, of course we do. Sorry. Yes, sir. But we will not sin when we receive the fullness of grace in heaven. You would agree with that?

Do you agree? This is past tense. *Charito* in past tense. It's an aorist past tense. Agree.

But that does not mean that we are accessing the grace currently. It means that he has graced us, but it doesn't mean we're accessing that grace.

Where does it say, where does it say that we don't actually have access to this blessing yet?

Because you just admit it. You said that you have not received the fullness of grace and you'll receive it when you get to heaven. In Ephesians 1:5 and 6, predestining us, adopting us, those sort of things. Has that already happened in the past for a believer?

So, this is, this is like John 3:16 when it says that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Yes, that is a past action that has been completed, but that doesn't mean that everybody has received the redemption or the *charito* mentioned in Ephesians 1 because of that past tense grace that was given to the world. It only, we only receive it in fullness when we get to heaven. And there we are sinless. You are actually arguing for the Catholic position right now.

So if *charito* here doesn't mean on this earth now, your, what your argument is, then therefore why do you think *charito* as it's used in Luke 1:28 would be referring to Mary at that time?

Because of the way that *charito* the,

past tense.

But *keritomen* as defined by all of the Greek scholars that I referenced does not just mean that it's a little bit of grace, but a perfect fulfillment of that grace. That's why many translations, even the one that you cited, says "full of grace," right? Mary is full to the brim of grace.

If you have a look at what that word means, I can cite it for you if you would like. To be caused, to be the benefit of, to receive favor, to be graced. That is how it is defined by Greek lexicons, by Greek scholars. And so then, why are you adding sinlessness into it when that is not at all the meaning of that Greek verb? It, it literally is. I've, I've cited Ephesians 1. You guys can check it. Ephesians 1 verse 4 where it says,

We've dealt with Ephesians 1. We've dealt with Ephesians 1 literally.

It's the same word.

Ephesians 1:4. "Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." So,

*amomos*.

Okay. That we should be. So as in, because of what he's done, we, we, we get to be holy and blameless. And,

in the future in heaven. Agreed. Then, then if that's future in heaven, why would it not also be the same for Mary if it's the same Greek verb?

I've already, I've already answered this because *kar*, *charito*, the way that the vocative perfect passive participle is phrased. Do you know what perfect means?

Yes, it means that the state,

happened in the past and it's still happening now. But can you prove to me why it's always going to be that way in the future? Because perfect doesn't imply it's always going to be that way in the future. Is there a way you can prove that?

Wait, are we talking about the, the perfectness or why it will continue to the future?

As in, as in a perfect tense verb, can you prove that it'll always be the same way in the future?

Well, like I noted from, uh, Renee Laurenton, a Greek scholar, she said that it's a perfect and permanent endowment with grace.

What evidence does she have for that? Because there's no evidence in the Greek from that. So, what evidence do you have to cite that? Is it just you're picking and choosing someone you want to believe?

No, she, she goes into it. She quotes multiple lexicons. She goes into the,

Give me one lexicon. I'm asking, give me one lexicon that proves that it means sinless.

goes into the roots of the word many. She talks about the perfect passive part. Again, I'm quoting scholars. You're saying, give me one piece of evidence. It sounds like you're just resting upon this woman who can give me the actual argument from the text. I,

I've given you arguments and then you, you're failing to understand them. I'm, I've quoted multiple scholars.

I'm wanting you, give me, give me, give me the argument that it means permanent. What is, what actually in the Greek it means it's permanent.

Okay. Anything. I just want something. Come on, just bro.

Do you agree that *charito* is the perfect passive participle?

And perfect part, perfect part, perfect, perfect past perfect participle does not mean permanent into the future. There's nothing in,

according to the scholarly consensus on biblical literature.

He even quoted Dan Wallace who said it just means it's resulting till now. It does not speak about the future, permanent into the future. So you can't get it from that, my friend. But let's, I want to change subject. So would you say that John the Baptist was a sinner?

Yeah, he was also a prophet.

Why was John the Baptist a sinner?

Um, because the Bible doesn't say otherwise, and it says that everyone has fallen short of the glory of God.

Okay.

There's no reason to believe,

otherwise.

Okay, so I guess we could say the same thing about Mary.

Well, no, because I've given you verses. I've given you typological evidence. I've given you Greek scholars. I've given you arguments from the Old Testament. I've given you, um, rituals. I've given you the fact that you said that Jesus's birth was unclean. And I feel like I've provided many exceptions.

So does the Bible say that Mary perfectly obeyed the law of Moses?

Does it say that explicitly? Does it say that the phrase,

Oh, no. Even the concept. Is it anywhere in the concept that Mary obeyed all the law of Moses?

Yeah, I think you can get that from two places. First, all of the evidences that I showed where she was sinless. And secondly, because there's no verse that ever says that she did break the law of Moses. I understand that that's not where the burden,

I'm asking you for a positive. You, you've got to provide. One of the points you have to provide is that that she has perfectly obeyed the entire Mosaic law. Is there any verse that can actually,

if someone is sinless, would they obey the Mosaic law completely?

Well, even if you're, if you're referring to Luke 1:28, which we disagree on what that means, why would that imply always into the future?

I'm not just talking about Luke 1:28. I'm talking about all of the arguments that I've made, including the typological evidence, the Greek scholars, um, oldest,

typological arguments. Again, the Bible, the Bible itself doesn't make those typological arguments. Would you agree? Those particular ones that you brought up?

No, I believe the Bible fully does. That's why there's so many like unexplainable,

single verse that mentions that Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Just one verse that mentions that she's the new ark of the covenant.

Yeah, I think Revelation 11:19 and then Revelation 12:1 where it says the ark of the covenant is in heaven and then completely compares it to a woman who is clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet. If you're going to say that the ark,

it's back-to-back verses. It says, "And then there appeared the ark of the covenant and then a woman."

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumbles, rumblings, peels of thunder, earthquake, and heavy hail." Okay. So, temple in heaven is open. The ark of the covenant was seen. Next verse, verse one, chapter 12:1. "And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun." Is there any connection between what this verse is here and the ark of the covenant that we saw in verse 12?

Right? Well, yes, it's back-to-back verses and all of the similarities, all of the same phrasing, all of the typology that I cited. I, I mean, it's explicitly clear. These are back-to-back verses that say ark of the covenant.

Where in the text itself does it say that this woman is that ark of the covenant?

Are you asking for, are you asking for the exact phrase, "Mary is the new"?

I'm just asking anywhere, anywhere in the phrase here that says that this woman is that ark.

You're, your biblical analysis is is completely failing here. It's showing,

then show me, show me where in the verse I read before, in the verse that's on the screen right now, where does it say, connect the woman with this ark?

Okay. Okay. So, you're aware that the ark of the covenant was, was not found, correct? And that it was hidden by the Lord.

Yeah. We don't know where it is.

Okay. So, then it says that it's appearing in heaven, which means now the ark of the covenant is found. And then boom, a sign, boom, in a bit. Yeah. And guess what? Guess what? Look, two verses on. "And another sign appeared, a great red dragon with seven heads and 10 horns." So, are you saying that the woman is also the red dragon?

Because straight after this, our dragon saying that that's what I'm saying. No, that, that's, that's two verses later.

I'm just saying because one, because because it says here in chapter 11 about this ark of the covenant in heaven, and then there's a woman that appears in heaven. You're equating the two. That's, do you not see that is equating the two when the scripture does not actually say that?

No. I'm showing you that there's back-to-back verses where the ark is talked about. It's finally found. And now we have this woman, right? And I'm also backing that up with all of the typological evidence that I provided in my opening statement with Mary staying in Othniel for three months, and the ark of the covenant staying in Othniel for three months. Then Mary staying in the hill country of Judea, the ark staying in the hill country of Judea, David leaping, or or sorry,

you're saying that you're saying you said there's no coincidence in those sort of things. But how do you know there's no coincidence in those things? Because there's also three months of other things in the Bible. There's also other phrasing that's similar. So why are you saying this is some sort of proof when again, scripture doesn't make that point?

So you're claiming that it's all a coincidence. Is that your position?

Well, I'm saying the Bible does not make anything of that. But I want to ask you this question. I got a bit of time left. So, um, did Christ redeem Mary from the curse of the law?

Did Christ redeem Mary from the curse of law? He saved her from it. Yeah.

So from the curse of the law.

He, he saved her from, from all things. Yeah.

No, but so from that includes the curse of the law then. Correct.

Um, well, no, not necessarily. It depends on what you mean by curse of the law. Did it mean that Mary didn't have to follow the law? No. Because even Christian,

who are free from the law still have to follow the law.

No, but Paul's, Paul himself says Colossians 3:13. Um, sorry, Galatians 3:13. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." So, did Christ redeem Mary from the curse of the law?

Did, uh, well, no, again, so he saved Mary from all of her sin, from all of her uncleanness. And so she would have never fallen under the curse of the law, rather, as Paul says in later passages, the law becomes a blessing and reveals our sins. Mary didn't have any sins. There were no sins revealed. But now the law is a blessing to her because she gets to follow it and serve the Lord.

So she was justified by it, you say?

What, I didn't say she was. I said she was justified by the blood of Christ. I said that like a million times. Okay. All right. I think,

Okay, gentlemen, we are going to wrap it up there. So, that finishes the, um, the cross-examination from both parties. So, well done, guys. Keeping it respectful. Got a little bit heated there, a little bit, but you did well by getting there through the end. And, oh, guess what? There's time to jingle for another outro. Sorry, not an outro. Bob will bring me a question while you guys get ready for, um, questions. And the audience, if you have any questions, now is the time to get them in. Put the QR in front of questions for Ryan. QN in front of questions for Noah. And our moderators, our lovely underpaid moderators will get them ready for us and sort out the chaos for us. But while we have this next question, um, who replaced Judas Iscariot as the 12th Apostle? Was it Barabbas, Matthias, Silas, or Timothy? First fastest answer gets in and takes the bragging rights for this last question. Who was it? Matthias, ever before him is in there with the correct answer. Eclipse coming in also. And third place goes to Charlie T. All right. So, well done, guys. So now we're going to start our questions. If someone can put them on the screen for me when they come up. First of all, we got the closing and then we got the question time.

Oh, did I skip a bit? I thought the closing was after. Okay, my fault. Um, all right. Well, um, let me see. Closing statements. Seven minutes each. All right. So, sorry guys. I'm jumping ahead of myself there. But still, if you have questions for the guys, QR at the start, and we've got seven minutes. Noah, take it away, brother.

All right. Yeah. So, I would, I would like to start off again, listing out the requirements that Ryan gave me in order to win this debate. He said, "I must prove that Mary was sinless." Think about all of the passages I provided. All of the ones that said that Mary, we didn't really get to get to it in my, uh, cross-examination, but all of the verses that said that Mary gave birth without pain, right? Ryan said he didn't know who this woman was. He's trying to avoid the fact that it was Mary, right? He tried to, to read the entire passage of Isaiah 66 to us in order to avoid answering that question. I agree. Reading the Bible's great. Context is great, but you can't just read that in a debate. It just shows that you weren't prepared for that question. That's okay. Um, because again, we're trying to discover truth, not make each other look bad in any way. U, and I'm not trying to be rude, but you were unprepared for that question. That woman is Mary. It says in Isaiah 66:7 that a woman will give birth to a son. It's a messianic prophecy. And she will have no pain in childbirth. And remember in Genesis 3, pain in childbirth is what actually results from sin. This would mean that the woman who gave birth to Jesus did not have pain in her childbirth. We can, we can talk about all of that. Maybe I'll make a video on this. Um, he also said that I must prove that Mary was always sinless. Again, the, the verbiage of *charito* many in the vocative form obviously shows that. Um, I must show that she keeps the entire law of Moses. The Bible never says that she breaks it. And if she's sinless, like I already showed, then yeah, of course, she didn't break the law of Moses. Um, I also must show that Bible verses, uh, that say "all have sinned" don't apply to Mary. I did that very clearly, showing that all of those passages either didn't, uh, reference to Mary or that they had clear exceptions like "none is good" or "none are righteous." Um, and I quoted from the Bible, just like you said. Um, I would also like to talk a little bit about something that Ryan didn't quite answer in our cross-examination, Leviticus. Um, which says that, um, if a woman gives birth for the next 30 days, she is not allowed to touch something holy or else she will be stoned. Think about that. Was Jesus holy? Yes. Did Mary touch Jesus? Yes. Does that mean that Mary should get stoned? Does that mean Mary would be stoned by the law? Well, she should have been, unless Mary wasn't unclean. Unless Mary was preserved from sin. Where does the Bible say that Mary was stoned? It doesn't, because this law, this rule did not apply to her. So again, Jesus is holy. Mary held Jesus. But then the Bible says that that can't happen or else she would get, uh, stoned. It's just simply what the Bible says. Uh, that's Leviticus 12:2-4 if you're interested in looking that up. Uh, and and also Revelation 12. Uh, Ryan was trying to minimize. He, he didn't even really talk about what he thought Revelation 12 was. He quoted some, some church fathers, tried to say that the church fathers thought it was Israel or that it was the church. Um, I have, I have quite a few quotes here. Um, St. Ephraim of Syria, "Thou alone and my mother are in all things fair. There is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy mother." Um, St. Athanasius, "O noble virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. You are the ark clothed with purity, free from stain." That's St. Athanasius, 373. Um, St. Ambrose in 388, "Mary, a virgin, not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace *charito* was made inviolable, free of every stain of sin." Also St. Augustine, St. Ephraim of Syria. Um, then we also have the Odes of Solomon. Um, we have Justin Martyr. We have more from St. Ambrose, St. John Damascene, uh, Epiphanius of Salamis, uh, Cyril of Alexandria, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, um, and St. Leo the Great. Um, and it's abundantly clear Ryan was wrong. The church fathers didn't teach this, but that's not what this debate is about. I don't even know why he brought it up because it's on what does the Bible teach? And I've shown in Luke 1:28, the word *charito* as defined not by any Greek lexicon, but by the Bible itself means to have redemption, to be an adopted son or daughter, and to be blameless. *Amomos*, that word used in Ephesians 1:4. We looked at it together on the screen. It says blameless. That same word is used to describe Mary. That *charito*, *keritomen* in the perfect meaning, fully filled passive participle form. Do you understand what that means? That means fully endowed from the past. She was perfectly filled with that grace. Meaning that at the time she was greeted by the angel Gabriel, she was sinless. She was *amomos*. She was blameless. She was *charito* endowed with the grace of Christ. Now Ryan tried to get around this and say he wouldn't even answer the question, "Does the grace of God justify us?" He wouldn't answer that question. That's unbelievable. He's, he's more focused on proving that Mary was a sinner instead of focusing on the sins that he's committing in his own statements. It's, it's honestly worrying. Um, and again, I, I have so many Greek scholars here that back up what I'm saying. I, I'll, I'll list off a few so that you guys can go, uh, take a look at them after this. Um, because I won't be able to read all of them if I can, if I can pull them. I got a lot of papers here, guys. Um, I might not be able to pull them up. There's, there's a lot of scholars. Uh, David B. Wallace is a great one. Um, go, go read his works on this. Go read Renee Laurenton. These are very important things to read. They're, they're extremely clear, extremely in-depth. Um, but yeah, the Bible teaches all of, all of Ryan's needs. I, I showed that Mary was sinless according to the Bible, that she fulfilled the law of Moses. Ryan did not do what he said he should do, right? He was the defense. He was supposed to dismantle my claims. Do you think that he really gave an in-depth explanation of what Luke 1:28 was meaning? Or was he just asking more questions about it? Was he just saying, "Oh, well, I don't really think that I disagree with the Greek scholars. I disagree with Ephesians 1." That's basically what he was saying. Did he give a reasonable explanation as to why Mary wasn't stoned for touching the holy object of Christ? No, he didn't give an answer. He wouldn't answer the question. Did he give an explanation as to who the woman in Isaiah 66:7 was? No. He simply said, "I, I'm going to read the whole chapter of Isaiah." The whole chapter of Isaiah 66 because he doesn't know. He doesn't know who that woman is. Or in the Song of Solomon, he doesn't know who that woman is. He doesn't know who the woman in Revelation 12 is. He can't explain these things because if he did, it would prove that Mary was sinless. That's the whole crux of this debate is that Ryan could not dismantle the claims that I made about the Greek. He could not dismantle the typological evidence. He simply said, "Oh, but that's typology. That doesn't matter." Do you think that the parallels that I showed between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant were coincidence? The parallels that I showed between Eve and Mary were a coincidence? Come on. You really think that? Thank you, guys. And thank you, Noah, for your closing statements. There we have Ryan to come up next. But oh, we've got another video, another trivia question for you. Another multiple choice. I'm going to try and make it a bit easier. Here we go. Um, who interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar's dream about the great statue? Was it Ezekiel, Daniel, Joseph, or Jeremiah? Fastest answer takes out the prize for the bragging rights. Who is it going to be? I can't see the answers, but someone can put on the screen for me. That would be great for the first one. I think, I think it is Jop. Jacob. Look at. No, actually, we've got a couple more before that. Oh, jeez. I haven't looked at this properly. Uh, from what I can see is, oh, Jacob, yes. But I think earlier ones we see Carol Berby as the first one. I can see Jesus King. So, well done, you guys. And, um, thanks for playing today. We may have another one just before the audience questions while Ryan's doing these, uh, last, uh, closing statement. If you think of the questions, please get them into us. QN for Noah's, Q asks for Ryan's. We'll read them out very soon. But over to you, Ryan, you have seven minutes. Thank you. Appreciate that. Let me get this ready for us.

Okay. So, um, now Noah mentioned, oh, Isaiah 66. I didn't respond to it. Well, we actually read it out because remember he wanted to give me, get me to give an answer without actually checking the context. And that's always unwise. But then we read it out. Actually says it was Zion. Zion. And so he's saying, "Oh, this woman is clearly Mary. Tell me where. Where does it mention?" And he's got nothing. This is the crux of Noah's arguments tonight. He's just been stating a lot of things but not backing them up with scripture. He made the outrageous statement, "Mary didn't have any pain in childbirth." Okay, but yet you want to say that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. Have a look. "She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains in the agony of giving birth." You've shot yourself in the foot, Noah. You want to say Mary's without birth pains and yet, and you think this is Mary in Revelation 12? Well, you've shot yourself in the foot. You can't have your cake and eat it too here, my friend. Now, he tried to argue about Leviticus 6. Mary should be, uh, she should be unclean and therefore should be stoned if she touched something holy. Clearly, the implication is holy objects in the tabernacle. It's not talking about holy people. We're holy people. It says that literally in, uh, Hebrews 3:1. So, like if a woman gives birth under the Jewish law and touched a saved person, did they die? Clearly, it's holy objects. Noah's just taking something out of context and he's trying to say that basically if his argument was true, it would mean that Mary didn't keep the Mosaic law, but she did on that part because she even offered a turtle dove at this, at the temple. Roman I, as I brought up in my opening statement, popes disagreed with her immaculate conception. Um, there's about seven different popes that disagree with her immaculate conception. And even as the Archbishop of Paris said when the immaculate conception was being defined, he said, "It can be proven neither from scripture nor from tradition." This is Noah's position. It cannot be proven from scripture. And that is hugely problematic, I would say. So Noah, he had to do five things to succeed in this debate. He had to prove Mary was sinless and not just graced, but actually sinless. And he's failed to do that. He tried to make an obscure argument from Luke 1:28, which Greek scholars do not agree that she's sinless. And that's what even, if you go to Catholic Answers, their sort of websites, they'll say that you cannot prove it from these verses. They're just trying to use it as maybe an indication to it, but not proving it. Secondly, it doesn't prove that she's always sinless. Even if she's been graced in the past, and even if that meant perfect, it doesn't mean from her conception. Noah was unable to prove from conception she was graced or perfect, nor that it will be permanent into the future. He hasn't been able to prove positively that Mary kept the entire Mosaic law her entire life. She wasn't able to respond to the objections about how Mary, Jesus' family called Jesus out of his mind, which would clearly be a sin, or how Mary was negligent and not looking after her children when when leaving Jesus behind in Jerusalem. And he hasn't actually responded to the verses that clearly say the universal sinfulness of humanity. Jesus is an exception because he's God. He can't fall short of his own glory. But why is Mary God? No one doesn't think she is. I don't think she is. So Mary can clearly fall short of the glory of God. So why does Noah believe that she's sinless? It's because his church tells him he has to, right? He's afraid of the potential threat that if he doesn't submit to this doctrine that's not in the Bible, then he's going to hell. You see, it's tragic that he's resting upon his church for his salvation rather than Christ. Because that, that institution is not founded by Christ. There's no evidence linking the man who's in the Vatican right now with Jesus Christ himself. But Rome makes it a requirement for salvation to accept these Mary and dogmas. You see a problem with that? So it's not trusting in Jesus alone. It's salvation by trusting in other things. Having to believe Mary was sinless in order to be in standing with his church. See how Satan has managed to convince millions that salvation is by being part of a club rather than resting in Christ. You see, if I asked Noah right now, are you in a state of grace? He might say yes. If I asked him why, he'd probably say, "Because I went to confession recently, and I haven't done any mortal sins since then." So, why does he think he's in a state of grace, a state of salvation? Because of actions he's done. He's gone to confession. He's been obedient enough, not simply because the actions of Christ. Why am I in a state of grace? Because I know my sinless savior died for me. So my sinful soul is counted free. For God, the just is satisfied to look on him and pardon me. That's the gospel. And this is how Mary got saved too. A woman who I greatly respect. The one who we can imitate in her willingness to believe what the Lord said to her. She had great faith. And the basis of faith, she was justified. Not in the basis of keeping the laws. Otherwise, he's having to say he's justified by her lawkeeping. But she was justified the same way Abraham was. And that was by faith. So I appeal to my, any Roman Catholics who are listening. I love you. I want the best for you. I want you to go to heaven, but don't trust in your church to get you there. Trust in Christ to get you there through his perfect sacrifice. And as Revelation 18:4 says, describes a voice coming from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues." I say that to you, too, my Roman Catholic friends. My hope is that you're set free from the shackles of Rome to come to the freedom of resting in Christ and just believing what the scripture says and nothing more. So who is your trust in? For me, my trust is in Christ. I hope yours is as well. Pope Pius the Ninth, who defined the immaculate conception of Mary as in her being born without original sin in a papal encyclical said this, quote, "Great indeed is our trust in Mary. The resplendent glory of her merits far exceeding all the choirs of angels elevates her to the very steps of the throne of God. Her foot has crushed the head of Satan, set up between Christ and his church. Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, has always delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, even rescuing them from ruin. The foundation of all our confidence, as you know well, venerable brethren, is found in the blessed Virgin. For God has committed to Mary, the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her I obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will that we obtain everything through Mary." End quote. Look at that. He admits his trust is in Mary, who he thinks he gets everything from Mary, including salvation. But who does scripture tell us to trust? The Lord. He's our rescuer. He's the one who delivers us. And he's the one who crushed the head of Satan, not Mary. So, let me finish with this verse from Psalm 18:2. "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my rock, my God, my rock in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold." Amen. And amen. And amen. Yes. Thank you, Ryan. And thank you, Noah. You've both presented your cases with passion and zeal. And may God get all the glory here. And may we learn from this further and have word put onto our hearts. Now, before we get into the viewer chats, we have one more outro. Not outro, I keep saying outro, a Bible trivia question. So, today we're going to finish it off with what city did Paul and Silas sing hymns in while imprisoned? Was it Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, or Thessalonica? Fastest answer takes out bragging rights for the end of this. If you have questions, please get them in with a QR for Ryan, QN for Noah. But again, I'd just like to thank you both for being respectful with each other and presenting a case, which has been great for us all to hear. The correct answer I see first is the names getting that in correctly. So, well done. Philippi being the correct answer. Uh, but also like to say thank you to the mods that have been organizing the back house side of things here as well, getting the questions ready. Let me get this timer sorted out and if someone can put on the first question, I will read it out to the respective debater. Now, the way it works is we'll read the question out. Whoever it's being asked will get one minute to answer. Then the other debater will get one minute to reply. Then the initial person being asked the questions will get a 30-second follow-up response. Do we understand, boys? Awesome. Noah, if Mary was sinless, why didn't she take our sin punishment? Could she have?

Um, no. Mary could not have taken our sin punishment because she's not God. Um, sinlessness is not the only thing that made Jesus able to bear our cross. It was his divinity.

was his immortal, eternal self that was able to bear our sins, not just his sinlessness. That was part of it, but not all of it. A great way to understand this is actually the saints in heaven. Those people are without sin. They couldn't come down and die on the cross for our sins. But they are without sin because they are perfected by Christ. Likewise, the angels in heaven, they are without sin. They are not sinners, but they could not have died on our cross. No, because Jesus is the only one that is eternal and powerful enough to die on the cross for our sins. He's the only one able to bear the weight of our sins. So, no, Mary could not have died on the cross. She is a creation and she is limited in her power. That's all I have to say.

>> Okay. Thank you, mate. Um, let's reset that. Ryan, you have a minute.

>> Yeah, I would say this is a great argument. If Mary was sinless, then she could be people's substitute, right? At least one person. Maybe she couldn't die for many people's sins. Obviously, that would you'd probably need to be God for that. But in terms of why couldn't she die for at least one person as be a substitute? Yeah, I don't think Noah presented a reason. He said, "Oh, he had to he had to be God." Well, I agree Jesus is God, but you haven't given me any text in scripture to say that in order for Jesus to at least pay for even one person's sins, he has to be God. There's no text that he can refer to to prove that case. Um, I think this is a brilliant argument. In fact, probably another one that this is this person may be thinking of is could Mary waltz into the Holy of Holies? She could could she do that? Could she she touch the ark of the covenant even before that got? Could she do that? under Noah's view. Yeah, she could just waltz in there because she's sinfree. And I think that would that's completely foreign to what scripture has to say.

>> Okay. Thank you, Ryan. And Noah, you have 30 second reply on that if you wish.

>> Yeah. So, uh Ryan said that Mary could die for someone else's sins. Um that's under the presupposition of penal substitutionary atonement. That's not how sin works. God, it actually says explicitly that no one will be punished for the sins of their fathers or the sins of someone else. That's not how sin works. So, um like like Mary could not die for in place of someone else. She could not bear the sins of someone else. No, Jesus, he suffers the penalty of death but not the wrath of God. That's not how sin works.

>> Okay, thank you for that. Our next question is, Mary was sinless because of her role. She needed his sacrifice and accepted God's grace by saying yes. So since he worked outside the realm of time, he created her without sin to be the perfect vessel. I'm going to throw that to you first, Ryan.

>> All right, thank you for your comment there, Lynette. Mary was sinless because of her role. Then why wouldn't the Bible say that? There are verses in the Bible that clearly say that Jesus is sinless and plus Jesus is God. But Mary's not God and there's no verses that say that she's sinless as we've already discussed in this debate so far. She needed his sacrifice. In what sense, though? Noah just admitted just surprised that he said it. He actually denies that Jesus took the punishment for our sins. Wow. Isn't that literally what it says? He bore our sins in his body on that tree. Does that not say that in 1 Peter 2:22? Does it not say that he was pierced for our transgressions? He was crushed for our iniquities. And and Noah's denying that. That's that's a huge issue. This is massive issue that Noah's part. But nothing in her role of having God in her womb means that she had to be sinfree. Like Simeon who held the baby Jesus on the eighth day, did he have to be sinfree because he was holding a sinless, perfect person? No. And so there's no reason for Mary to have to be sinless either.

>> Thank you, Ryan. And you have one minute there, Noah.

>> Yeah. So, first of all, I I would like to address what Ryan said about me saying that I don't believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That's not what I said. I was talking about penal substitutionary atonement. I have a video on my channel if you guys want to know what I was talking about a little more in depth. Um, but yeah, I agree with Lynette Rogers here. Um, Mary was sinless because of her role bearing God, right? um she needed his sacrifice. I fully agree. Right. Lynette put put it in very simple terms is that Mary was saved by God. It just happened at a different time. That's that's why I brought up so many verses. And Ryan said nowhere in the Bible did it say that Mary sinless. Again, I gave so many quotations, so many verses, right? Luke 1:28, a direct connection to Ephesians 1 that literally uses the word amamus to be sinless. Go check the Greek for yourself. Kerito is defined by Ephesians 1 as a mammoose sinless. I think that's it.

>> Thank you, Noah. And uh Ryan, you've got 30 seconds to respond on that.

>> I made clear, Noah, you said Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins. You said no one can pay for the sins of another. That's literally the gospel. If you deny that Jesus can take our sins, pay the penalty we deserve, you've messed up Christianity, my friend. This is the central thing of Christianity. But we see he mentioned oh I mentioned so many verses and he tried to say karto means this when kato applies to us right now past tense right now every saved Christian guess what do we still sin yes we do so therefore even if kto said to Mary doesn't mean that she's sinfree

>> okay thank you for that we have our next question for Noah in Luke 1:28 how does temporal application of grace determine what the grace itself is how can you make that leap

>> So the temporal action of grace is actually a misrepresentation of what the characteristic of kertomen means. So if it said Mary is kerito I would agree with you. It's a temporal action. It just means that she has grace. But no it says Mary is keritomen endowed with grace full with grace permanently and perpetually endowed with grace perfectly. That's why it's the perfect passive participle. This is what the Greek means. So again, it's not a temporal action in the sense that it happened once and Mary lost it. No, it's it's something that is permanent with her. Again, Renee Laurenton, uh Daniel Wallace, uh Blast De Bruner from Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Smith from Greek Grammar, um CRI's Attack on Mary from Carl Keading, um and Martin Luther's little prayer book, he defines it as to be perfectly endowed with grace. Um, so yeah, again, a lot of Greek scholars, even the Protestant scholars like Martin Luther, affirm that how I'm interpreting Luke 128 is indeed the correct way to interpret it.

>> Thank you, Noah. And Ryan, you have 60 seconds to reply to that.

>> I think Noah's just misreading all these people. He quoted Daniel Wallace again. Daniel Wallace said this, "The perfect tense is used to describe a completed action whose effects are felt in the presence." This does not say permanent. He's just inserting this even into a Daniel Daniel Wallace rejects Mary's sinlessness. He doesn't affirm that she's always been sinless. Um, perfect tense just means it's happened in the past at some stage in the past, not from that person's conception. And there's nothing in a perfect tense which implies it's happening until today. So that's why Noah has failed to actually prove his case in this debate. But I think he also made the case that, oh, it's full of grace. Well, that's from the Latin vulgate. That's not from the Greek. The word for full doesn't actually appear uh the word for full is play race in the Greek and it doesn't appear for Mary here. It actually appears for Steven in Acts 68. Steven was play race caris. So full of grace caris is the noun and then and then karto was the verb. And so when they say oh Mary's full of grace that actually is not what Luke 1 128 and that's even what Catholic translations don't have it as today. They have it as oh favored one.

>> Thank you, Ryan. And Noah, you have 30 seconds to respond to that.

>> Yeah, so Ryan brought up uh Stephen. I knew that this was going to come up eventually. Um how uh it says that he's Claris carries. Um and that is the noun like Ryan said, not the verb or the state of being. Again, Renee Laurenton said that the way it's used to describe Mary is to be her very state of being. Um it's it's it's her essence is to be in a state of grace. Um so again, Ryan's misinterpreting the Greek once again. And as far as uh Daniel Wallace goes, I wasn't quoting him to say that he believes Mary was sinless, but rather that his interpretation of the Greek backs up mine.

>> Awesome. Thank you, Noah. And our next question is a super chat. Thank you for your super chat, Frosty. You get a little sound there for that one. Okay. If Jesus took his humanity from Mary, then if she had original sin, God united himself to a fallen nature impossible. And if he made his own flesh, he didn't truly become man. Christ's real humanity requires Mary's purity. And we're going to throw this to Ryan.

>> That's me. Yeah. Uh, this is not the case, Frosty. Appreciate your question. But the reason why Jesus had no original sin is not because Mary was perfect. The reason why Jesus has no original sin is because he didn't have Adam as his representative in the Garden of Eden, right? We're all born in Adam, but we need to be born again in Christ, right? Christ did not have Adam as his representative. It's not because Mary was perfect. Because following your logic, Frosty, does Mary's mother need to be perfect? I'm curious what Noah's going to say. What about Mary's mother's mother? All the way back to Adam and Eve, did Adam and Eve need to be perfect then? You see, this is the problem with his argumentation here. Um, and one thing he just mentioned, oh, look, it's a state of being. No, that's not what keraton uh that's not what that Greek phrase means in Luke 1:28. Because remember, if I call my wife beautiful, does that mean she's the only one in the world that's beautiful? Does that mean she's always going to be beautiful? Not necessarily. I can, you know, people can call other people beautiful. And so an angel can call Mary, oh favored one with other people also possessing that same attribute and and not saying that that's their identity, though.

>> All righty. Thank you there, sir. We have 60 seconds now for you, Noah, to respond.

>> Yeah. So Ryan is misinterpreting what the question even is here, what the objection is. He brought up St. Anne and how Staint Anne would have to be sinless because she's the mother of Mary. No, we teach that the um the sperm and the egg of Mary in their own were affected by sin, but only when they came together was it prevented from sin in the immaculate conception. But like we know how conception works. If Jesus, right, the egg of Mary, if Mary was a sinner, we know that sin affects the whole body, the whole nature of a person. So if Mary was a sinner, the egg that would later become Christ through the uh Holy Spirit would then also be affected by sin. And like this guy says, uh if the flesh is made by God. If it's not from an egg, then Jesus is not truly taking on human nature. He's creating his own flesh and didn't truly become man. So, uh, that that's what the actual objection is. If God is making some sort of divine flesh that isn't the same nature that we have, then it's it's it's completely different.

>> Okay. Thank you there, Noah and Ryan, you have 30 seconds.

>> Yeah. Now, very clearly scripture says that Jesus was like us in every way yet without sin. And so, therefore, he was definitely fully human, not half human like Noah just asserted there. That that would that's not our position whatsoever. Instead, it's interesting though what Romans 8:3 says. For God has done what the law weakened by the flesh could not do. By sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh. So, you see that Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, like us in every way, even born of a mother who had sin, but he had no sin himself.

>> Thank you. Now, this next question will be for Noah. It's from Jamie. We have a $20 super chat. There we go, Jamie. That's just for you playing a tune. Okay. Question for Noah. Does God give grace to unbelievers? Does that grace save them? Contextually, how do you get Mary being sinless as the grace bestowed on her in Luke 1 rather than her being made the mother of the Messiah?

>> Yeah. That is a a that that is a great question. So, uh, there there's two different forms of grace. There's grace as in um worldly things like God graces you to not be homeless. That could be a a great example. God graces you with a roof over your head. That would be grace in the noun form of keris. But like we said, the grace given to Mary is kery tomen in the perfect passive participle form. So again, we're getting into the Greek, but the kerytomen would imply as Renee Laurenton again going back to the scholars that it is her very state of being. It's not just a noun of carries, but rather the grace is the being of Mary. it is her um it's her very state of nature and so it's not the same as the noun grace. It's the verb the perfect passive participle in the vocative form in fact of the grace. So the grace is actually most likely or 100% actually referencing the same type of grace that's talked about in Ephesians 1 that saved us not the noun form of kice or grace.

>> Okay. Thank you Ryan. You can respond with 60 seconds.

>> Yeah, I'm not sure if Noah understands what the difference between a verb and a noun is. You see, when we have verb, a verb, it's that doing word, it's the receiving. So like with Mary or with us, received grace, right? And so whether it's the noun form or the verb form, it still has that same root meaning. It's grace. One's just the action of receiving it, the other one is possessing it. And it's there's not a difference in ah this means perfect. I think this question from Jamie is a really good one though. Unbelievers get grace and Noah admitted that. Okay, so Noah, if unbelievers get grace, then why don't you define grace as those things? Wouldn't the context rather determine what the grace is? Right? So rather than importing the meaning of Ephesians 1 into Luke 1, two different books, two different authors, why not actually look at the context of Luke 1 and see, ah, the favor is that you will behold a child and he'll be the son of the living God. That's the grace that Mary received, not sinlessness.

>> Oh, Paul, you are muted, I think.

>> Oh, sorry. I unmuted. Sorry. No, you have 30 seconds, mate. Sorry about that.

>> Awesome. Thanks so much. Yeah. So, Ryan claims that I'm I'm confused on the difference between a noun and a verb. Um, I I think that's a that's pretty intellectually dishonest to say the least. Obviously, I know what a noun and a verb is. I'm trying to distinguish between the verb in the perfect passive participle form. Again, I've quoted Greek scholars and uh I don't think that this is something that's really like clocking to Ryan here is that like the Greek scholars know what they're talking about a little bit more than Ryan from needgod.net. It's not the same.

>> And thank you for that. We now have another 60cond question up there. And I believe this one's going to Ryan. If you were God and had to choose a woman to carry your only begotten son, what type of woman would you choose? God obviously chose a holy woman. This sort of argument could be used of if you're going to have 12 disciples, what sort of disciples you going to have or perfect ones, ones that never sin, that faithfully preach and never do anything bad. And yet, what do we see? God cho chose the nobodies. In fact, I love that passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 1 that comes to mind. Verse 26. Consider your calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise according to worldly standards. Not many were powerful. Not many were of noble birth. You see, God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. See, if Mary was sinfree, she would be able to boast in the presence of God. She wouldn't have said, "I I needed Christ to die for my sins because Noah thinks that she had no sins. So, she um won't be able to give thanks for what we can give thanks for, that Christ died for a terrible sinner like me." She could never say that. And so, this argument just doesn't work. It's not a biblical argument because you can make that of anyone. If if God if you wanted to mar honor Mary, why not just make her up in heaven and not bring her to earth at all?

>> Okay. Thank you, Ryan. And you now have 60 seconds. I'll delay the start. I'll give it a little delay start there for Ryan. So you get a same 5-second delay. Go for it, Noah.

>> Awesome. Yeah. So, uh, I would actually like to kind of strengthen the argument that we got here from the question. Um, I I believe that it's it's not the best argument, right? Because I think Ryan made a really good point that the apostles, why weren't they? Wouldn't that be fitting for Jesus to have sinless apostles? Well, well, sure. But there's an argument that actually comes from um the Calvinist view of predestination that God's act of incarnation, the the act of incarnation through Christ was an eternal one. And that action was before the fall. God knew that that was going to happen before the fall of man. And therefore, he was planning to have this incarnation through something that where sin was not yet entered into the world. Um, and so a lot of philosophers, uh, Catholic theologians have argued and tried to say that this predestination theology actually proves that Mary was sinless because the incarnation was before sin entered the world. That idea is an eternal incarnation. Um, and that's not necessarily my stance, but I think it it kind of strengthens the argument that's being made by Spook here.

>> Nice. Thank you for that, Noah. And 30 seconds for you to respond there, Ryan.

>> Yeah. So, not only would Christ being born of Mary be from the foundation of the world, but even his disciples, they'd be chosen from the foundation of the world. You know, who he chose to save us from the foundation of the world. So, that argument just doesn't hold any weight. Um, instead, we see that God uses sinners. Every example we see in the Bible is God using sinners. And you know why he uses sinners? So that they can't boast. So they can say, "It's all God. I'm a wretch. I'm nothing." To God be all the glory.

>> Thank you, Ryan. And we are now going into our next question for Noah. You say that Christ died for Mary to prevent her from sinning. But Paul says in Romans 4:5 and 56 that Christ died for died for and justifies the ungodly, not the godly.

>> Yeah. I wouldn't describe Mary as godly. I think that would be probably a form of of idolatry to say that she is godly, meaning in the essence of being God. Um, that I would I would not say that. I would say that she's Christlike, that she's justified, but I wouldn't I wouldn't say that necessarily means she's godly. Would I say that she's ungodly? No, I don't think I would say that either. But rather, Paul again is using that general statement, not that exhaustive one. He's using general language saying that he justifies the ungodly. He doesn't say, "But he doesn't justify anyone else." He just says, "He justifies the ungodly." He doesn't say there's no no other type of person that's justified by Christ. No, because Mary was justified by Christ. And without Christ, she would have been ungodly because it's all according to the power of Christ. It's Christ. It's always back to Christ. Um, so yeah, that's where I would stand on that. And uh, Ryan got a little a little look in his eye. I again, I'm not saying that Mary is ungodly, simply that she is not of the equal essence to God. I don't like the word godly.

>> Thank you, Noah. You have 60 seconds, Ryan.

>> Yeah, that really surprised me that he said that that Mary is not godly. That's really surprising. If she is perfect, as Noah claims, then yes, she's godly. Absolutely, she should be godly. Uh we see here in second Peter 1:3, his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, right? through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence. All things that pertain to life and godliness, he's granted to us. And that's even as believers, right? We are considered godly people because we're in Christ. But who does he save? He saves the ungodly. Those who come to the point of realizing, "I'm nothing. I'm a wretch. For while we were still weak, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly." for those who have done so many evil things. That's who Christ died for. Mary wouldn't be covered under this because is Noah saying that Mary is ungodly because ungodliness implies sin.

>> Thank you, mate. And uh we have another 30 second followup there for you, Noah.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I explicitly said that Mary is not ungodly. I don't know why you're asking that question. It seems like you're trying to latch on to something that I didn't say. In fact, I said the exact opposite because I knew that you were going to try and go there. I said that Mary is not godly in the sense that she is equal to the essence of God. So I could see that that's what that question was kind of pointing to. But no, she's she shares the godliness that all Christians do. Um and as far as uh Christ justifying the ungodly, neither of those verses ever say that he didn't justify anyone who was not ungodly.

>> Thank you, Noah. Now our next question is a super chat from Bellacito. There's your little noise. Well done. Hebrews 9:4. This is for Ryan. Hebrews 9:4. Arkh held mana rod tablets equals Jesus equals bread of life. High priest were 2 Samuel 6:14. Uh 41. David leaping before the ark. John the Baptist leaping in the womb. Ark three months. Mary three months.

>> Um yeah. So these sort of connections are not ones that the Bible makes themselves. This is just people saying, "Oh, there's something says here and says that and therefore it must be connection." We can't do that because otherwise you could make connections with anything. Um, in fact, if you look at the, you know, how can the mother of my lord come to me? That's what Elizabeth said. And then David said, "How can the ark come to me?" Look at the difference between that. We see that David is like, I don't want the ark to come to me because he was afraid that he might die. When Elizabeth is like, "Yes, I got Elizabeth here, the mother of my Lord. That's amazing." And she was embracing. It's completely opposite. um ideas here and again three months leaping that's not making a connection there. We can't just make connections that we want to find in the Bible. We have to go to what do the authors of scripture intend. Otherwise we it's isog Jesus. Isoges where you put into the text what you want it to say. Exesus is where you get from the text what it's actually saying. I think Noah is clearly doing is Jesus wanting to get the text to line up with his Catholic dogma rather than getting from the text what it's saying.

>> I'll just unmute myself. Thank you, Ryan. Sorry, guys. I didn't want to have my heavy breathing coming through like last time. But anyway, you have 60 seconds now. I'll go for it.

>> Yeah. So, uh first of all, uh Ryan tried to say that David was afraid of the ark and that that's how it's different from Elizabeth, but it literally it says that he was leaping and dancing at the presence of the ark. Um I I don't I don't necessarily know if he was like, "Get get this thing away from me." seems like he was he was pretty happy. Um, and it's I'm just kind of blown away. Again, these are three out of the I I think I put six different typological parallels in there. And in his uh rebuttal, I think it was, he was saying things like, "Oh, but the ark was made of wood and gold. Does that mean that Mary's made of wood and gold, too?" Obviously, he doesn't understand what typology is, right? Jesus is the mana. He's used as a typological parallel. Does that mean that Jesus is made of wheat? No. I mean, come on. that that you're not understanding what typology is. Mary is likened to the ark to show that she is sinless. That's why Luke uses the same um language. That's why he says fruit of Mary to compare her to Eve and have her as the antitype of Eve. That's why Revelation compares the ark to the woman.

>> Thank you, Noah. 30 seconds for you to replay. Thanks.

>> Yeah. So, again, the Bible does not make those sort of connections. That's what Noah is making, but it's not what the Bible's making. We always got to check the difference between what someone's asserting what scripture actually says. Now he mentioned the David thing. Have a look what happened. David was angry because the Lord has broken out against us. And that place was called Perez Aza to this day. And David was afraid of the Lord that day and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" And David was not willing to take the ark of the Lord into the city of David. This is not a welcoming of the ark. This is get it away from me. I might die. And so again, it's not a connection with Mary.

>> Thank you, Ryan. Now, this one is for Noah. Isaiah 66:78 speaks of a nation being born in a day. How can this prophecy be about a single human, Mary, when the context clearly points to God's people collectively?

>> Yeah. So, the reason I actually brought up Isaiah 66:7 is because I believe that that is about Israel, about the church, just like the Catholic Church believes. And I also believe that um Revelation 12 is also about Mary and the church. So the reason I brought that up is because of the apparent contradiction between Isaiah 66 where it says that there is no labor and pain for the people of God like this question states and then revelation which states that there is labor pain um before the birth of the Messiah. And so the reason I brought that up is because now Ryan has to choose. One of these is Israel, the people of God, and one of these is not Israel because of this quote unquote contradiction, right? Because one is saying that there's birth pains, one is saying that there's not. So Ryan, if Isaiah 66 is about the people of God, and it says that there are no birth pains before the birth of the Messiah, and then Revelation 12 is also about the people of God, but says that there are birth painans before the birth of the Messiah. Which one is actually about the people of God? I would love to hear your answer,

>> Ryan. You have 60 seconds to reply.

>> All right. Yes. My answer is is that in Isaiah 66, it clearly says it's Zion that gives birth. And Noah is assuming that's giving birth to the Messiah. Nothing in the text says it's giving birth to the Messiah. I'm curious where he's getting that from the text, not from his church, but from the text itself. It seems to just be giving birth to God's people. Zion's giving birth to God's people rather than the Messiah himself. But again, Noah is saying, "Oh, the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. Well, then why has she got all these pains and childbearing? That doesn't fit with your view, Noah. But even if it was Mary in Revelation 12, that does not prove she's sinless. Nothing in that context indicates that whatsoever. So, I think what we see is that Noah is just open up random things in the Bible and saying, "Oh, this points to Mary. This points to Mary." But we've always got to check the context and see, is that what it's actually talking about? And if we do that, we see that Isaiah 66 is not talking about Mary. Neither is Revelation 12. And so let's just stick to the verses that do talk about Mary and it never describes her as being sinless.

>> Thank you, Ryan. You have 30 seconds there, Noah.

>> Yeah. So, a couple of things. Um, first of all, the reason I know that it's talking about giving birth to the Messiah is because Isaiah 66 is a messianic passage. Um, and you said it's talking about giving birth to a nation, but it literally says in the verse Isaiah 66:7, giving birth to a son, not a nation, not a people's. It says a son. Um, also the word used for birth pains in Revelation is talking about metaphorical and emotional pains. It's the same word used for Paul and he didn't give birth to any children.

>> Okay, thank you, Noah. And now we have another 60cond question. This is Oh, back to Noah again. I think we should give one for Ryan. Is there any question?

>> Yeah, I think it's for me.

>> I should question.

>> Sure. Do we want to go with this question or do you want to

>> Wait, wait. This one.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. So, this one for you, Ryan. Does innocent mean the same as justified?

>> Does innocent mean the same as justified? Well, justified means to be put in right standing before God. And so then, how was how do we get in right standing before God? The Bible makes clear it is through faith. So, Romans 5:1 makes that clear. Therefore, since we've been justified by faith, we have what? Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Was Mary justified by faith, Noah? I want you to answer that if you can. Was she justified by faith? Because that seems to be how scripture repeatedly says that people are justified. But I think on Noah's viewpoint, he can't say justified by faith because how could she be already um justified from conception before she even has faith? That doesn't make any sort of sense whatsoever. Now, he made the claim that there's nothing in scripture that says that God doesn't justify the godly. Why would the godly need to be justified? Why would they need to be put back into right standing before God as if they're not in right standing before God? Right? So, clearly, it's only the ungodly who need to be justified. And if Mary's not ungodly, then she's not justified.

>> Thank you, Ryan. And Noah, you have 60 seconds to respond.

>> So to address the question that you asked um was Mary saved by faith? Yes. Um and and was she justified by faith? Yes, in two ways. First of all, we know that she was saved by original sin and God is an eternal being knowing all actions. Um and original sin is what provides concup concupisence or the inclination to sin. And so if one is born without original sin in the sense that they are preserved by grace and also overshadowed epiasco by the holy spirit which by the way Adam and Eve did not have. If they are overshadowed and preserved from original sin with a godly spirit overshadowing them then their concupisence will not be able to override their intellectual and godly in the sense that we're using it to describe Christians their godly will. So, uh, that's that's how Mary was saved. Is also saved by the faith of Israel and the faith of her parents. Um, but also God knows through all of this, just like it says that baptism is for us and for our children. It's that faith that works through parents for their children.

>> Thank you, Noah. Ryan, you have 30 seconds.

>> Yeah. The text does not say that you're justified by the faith of another person. Instead, we have been justified by faith. Clearly, this is us. If you go look the context, Romans 4:23 says, "For the words it was counted to him were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also it will be counted to us who believe in him." So we have to believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. So did Mary believe this? If not, how could she be justified by faith?

>> Thank you, Ryan. And our next question is for now. Jamie super chat $20. Thank you my friend. You need to talk to me later about how much money you're earning and how much you're giving you. That's great. We'd love it. Uh question for Noah. Do you agree with the quote Ryan Gay from Pope Pas the 9th in his closing statement?

>> Yeah. So I would like to preface my answer to that question with one. This has nothing to do with whether or not Mary is sinless. If I believe in this, this is from Pope Pius the 9th, which is a uh declaration on the immaculate conception. And the immaculate conception actually isn't the only idea on how Mary was sinless. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Christians reject the immaculate conception, but they believe in Mary's sinlessness. So again, the Catholic Church is independent of the truth of whether or not Mary was sinless. However, I do agree with everything that Pope Pas said. I believe in high veneration, hyperdullia, if you will, of Mary. Um, I believe that Christ revealed her as the queen of heaven for a reason. Um, now again, I don't hold the solar scriptor, so I don't need to back up all of those claims with the Bible alone. I believe they can all be traced back to the Bible, not in some part approach, but um, I believe that the church has the infallibility to interpret such things. So, hyperdullia, yes, I believe that all things um, are given to us by Christ through Mary. I'll explain more in my 30 seconds.

>> Thank you, Noah and Ryan, please respond.

>> Yeah, this is so interesting that he agreed that he he agrees with this. Ready? He says, "The foundation of all our confidence, as you all know, is found in the blessed virgin Mary. For God committed to Mary the treasury of all good things in order that everyone may know that through her obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will that we obtain everything through Mary." I cannot believe that Noah says he agrees with this. Look who Noah's faith is in. It doesn't seem to be like it's in Christ. It's in Mary. And this is tragic. And I hope that even Roman Catholics listening to this are going to say, "I disagree with that quote. That doesn't sound like the book of Psalms. It doesn't sound like scripture. Nothing like that." Does anyone say, "Oh, my hope is in Mary. She dispenses all these graces and gives me my salvation." Instead, it's always spoken of the Lord. He's my rock. He's my refuge. He's my salvation. So I call Noah to abandon trust in Mary and put sole trust in our great God.

>> Okay, over to you Noah for 30 seconds.

>> Hey Ryan, I don't have all the fancy tools. Could you put the quote that you just showed back up on so I can I can explain it a little better. Uh so I I want to talk about that last part. For this is his will that we obtain everything through Mary. What's being said there is that Mary and Christ are intertwined. So we receive everything by Christ and Christ came through Mary. This is the doctrine of hyperdullia and why it pertains to the virgin. So all of this uh flowery language about Mary is because Christ came through Mary to us. So everything we obtain from Christ came through Mary from her womb.

>> Thank you Noah. And is there any more questions that we have? Yes, we do have one for Ryan. Uh, does one have to sin in order to be saved? An analogy. If someone stops me from falling in a hole as opposed to pulling me out of one after I fall in, did that someone save me or not?

>> Well, I understand you can use the word saved in that sense, but the natural reading of Luke 1:47, my spirit rejoices in God my savior, is not I'm a sin. I'm a sin-free person. I don't need a sa saving in that sense, but God just saved me from all sin. Nothing in the context. She doesn't say, "Look, I have never sinned." That's not what she says. If you just continually look at scripture, 2 Peter 2:22 talks about Christ having no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. It's making a very clear statement about Jesus. But then have a look at what it says about us. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree that we might die to sin and live to right righteousness. By his wounds, you've been healed completely all the time. It's always about Jesus being sinless and therefore dying for our sins. Never once does it mention, oh Mary, Mary Mary says I'm sinless. I don't need a s I don't need someone to die for me. Because reality is Mary would not need Jesus to die for her sins if she had no sins.

>> Thank you, Ryan. And Noah, you have 60 seconds to respond.

>> Yeah. So again, Ryan's kind of showing that he doesn't he either doesn't understand the doctrine of the immaculate conception or he's willingly not um representing it correctly. We believe that Christ died for Mary. It just happened before she was born. The pit of sin is a great analogy for this. Um another one that I tried to bring up, uh I didn't get to finish it because it was during the cross- examination and Ryan rightfully interrupted me, which he's allowed to do. Um, but it's the uh trust fund analogy that if one person goes into debt in their life and then a trust fund is given to them, their debt is cleared. But if somebody is given a trust fund before they ever go out and live, if they're given a trust fund at their birth, they can go out and they'll never go into debt. It's the same trust fund, it's the same money, same amount of money, same grace, if you will, cherries in the noun, that same grace is given to them, but it's applied in a different way at a different time. So that's the same thing that's given to Mary. Christ did die for Mary, just she didn't commit any personal sin because his death prevented that for her.

>> Thank you, Noah. 30 seconds there for you, Ryan, to respond.

>> Even with his analogy right there, he was saying, well, it was paid off beforehand. Well, that still implies then that she's acrewing some sort of payment or debt that's needing to be paid. But if your position is the topic of today's debate is that Mary has always been without sin as in she never sinned her entire life which means she never needs forgiveness which means she doesn't acrue any debt. She doesn't need to use a trust fund why would she need to if she's got no sin against her name or ever would do that. So clearly she did sin but she rested in Christ.

>> Thank you Ryan. And are you up for any more questions or is that it? I think that was the last question.

>> Okay, awesome. Well, I would just like to say a big thank you for both of you two for being um respective, respectful to each other. I'd like to thank the audience as well for uh the respectful comments I've been seeing in there. I did see the timeout hammer come out on a few people there and kicked out of the stadium, but that's uh what's going to happen when you have so many viewers there watching this. Um feel free to send any more questions in after the stream. You can leave comments there as you see the stream as well. Um, but uh, thank you so much everyone involved. Thank you for the moderators behind the scenes

>> and I just want to say thank you to No, I appreciate the debate, man. It's good chatting to you.

>> Yeah, thank you for having me on. It was a blast.

>> And uh, I I hold no position here. I come here very impartial even though it is on the go.net site, but I thank you both for your time and the respect that you showed us all. But until next time when you see us on the stream, make sure you hit the like button if you haven't done so already. Subscribe so you can see the next time we stream. and we'll see you there next time that we're on air. Thanks, guys. See you later.