Not exactly. Being a Protestant means your doctrines stem specifically from the leaders of the reformation wanting to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelicals and Baptists who reject traditional Protestant beliefs or any other group that believes in reform that didnt stem from the reformation technically arent Protestant even if they’re non Catholic/non orthodox.
@@sirhandel6966 Homie contemporary evangelicals and Baptists are not Baptists. Traditional Protestants wanted to reform the church as an institution from within while retaining some of its traditions. Baptists and evangelicals don’t accept that
@frmyt1135 baptists and evangelicals are even more reformers because they are even more anti Roman catholic and therefore want change away from tradition more.
part 11 “I'm not against denominations. "Non-denominational" in Christianity always means Protestant.” Yea it sounds like it and almost all of your theological points are aligned with Protestantism except for the subjective truth thing. “Liberty (freedom of speech, gun rights, property rights, etc), spirituality and brotherhood. All of it is based on the Bible. Specific details (Sabbath, heresy, divinity of Jesus, etc) are discussed in my videos.” Those are not theological believes they are more aligned with personal believes then anything when I say “theological ties” I mean concepts that have something to do with CHRIST maybe salvation,theosis, the sacraments, etc…
Freedom of speech: Jesus got killed because of His words. Gun rights: "Then he said to them, “But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword." - Luke 22:36. Property rights: thou shalt not steal. "Yea it sounds like it and almost all of your theological points are aligned with Protestantism except for the subjective truth thing." I don't consider truth to be subjective.
This guy is just your typical younger American Protestants. Mixes Christianity with 1776 American ideology, hates any sort of organized church. Ignorance and idolatry.
This is a perfect example of why you dismiss the Church Fathers. Now that you’ve dismissed them, you can openly misinterpret Jesus saying we should be armed and ready for self defense. Never mind the fact he rebuked Peter for cutting the assistant’s ear and healed it. Never mind the fact Christ told Peter those who live by the sword die by the sword and how we should always recur to dialogue instead. Never mind the fact he said 2 swords would suffice for 13 men. Clearly Jesus wasn’t talking about self defense. The sword was necessary to fulfill the prophecy that he’d be put to death alongside the transgressors. In the very next turn of events the Romans come to apprehend him and crucify him and what does the Lord do? Accept his fate and rebukes Peter for recurring to violence. You are a false teacher and therefore a heretic. Repent.
@@OrthopraxChristianity the point is that the early church didn't teach it...and more importantly neither did the church in Rome until after Charlemagne.
I disagree with the filioque as well. Anyways, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. So you are implying that the Church before the adoption of the filioque was the real deal. Orthodox Christianity rejects filioque. Alright, does this have anything to do with what I'm saying in the podcast/video?
I haven't mentioned filioque in the podcast. In the podcast I talk about the claims that churches (whether Catholic or Orthodox) make to justify their believe that only they are legitimate and that only they have the right to be a Christian denomination.
part 9 “We should be worried about what the truth is. We just shouldn't consider beliefs as facts. That's the difference between Orthoprax Christianity and all other forms of Christianity. It's not an orthodox system. It's a spiritual system. Oh and it has everything to do with what the apostles preached. That's why I'm quoting them all the time. It has nothing to do with the church fathers.” The Apostles never preached this Paul himself said if there was any chance of the resurrection of JESUS be false then our whole faith is pointless “Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” 1 Corinthians 15:16-19. So as seen hear the Apostle Paul truly believed the resurrection as a fact and not some time of belief liable to error because if it wasnt our whole faith would be futile.
I see nothing in that quote from Apostle Paul that contradicts what I have said. I have said, "we should be worried about what the truth is" and then you showed me a verse in which Apostle Paul is worrying about the truth 🤷♂.
@@OrthopraxChristianity it is you dont believe christianity as being the one true religion " How can there even be "one true" religion? " you said this exaxt words ( or typed it).
part 8 "* My own interpretation of the Bible. Sure. You can say that. In the same way, I can say that follow the interpretation of the Bible from some guys who lived over 1000 years ago. The use of the word "interpretation" is completely pointless in this specific conversation. You seem to have a good understanding of Oriental Orthodox Christianity. Just fairly compare my theology with the theology of your church fathers and see which one is the best. I'm convinced that if you would do that fairly, you will like Orthoprax Christianity way more”. I ready talked about why the Church fathers are important earlier in this reply, but your view on this is understandable given the church fathers, the saints, and the church all tell you your idea is false and heresy and you have to justify that on the claim the church fathers don't matter and only scripture dose so the good old protestant sola-scriptura doctrine and because scripture specifically the new-testament does not dive in your abnormal ideologies of christianity(nor support them) you think you can justify on just that, and that's just not how the church works your baseless accusations and opinions don't falsify the almost 2000-year-old church build of holy church traditions based on Holy scriputra and the holy fathers, and no I dont like orthropax more and even if I did that dosent shouldnt push me to be orthoprax Im looking for the truth not a heresy, and to be honest your views are not new theres multiple teachers and hertics who at all points of history preached this subjective truth philosophy some of them going to the extreme and saying all religions point to one GOD but your view is just a subgroup of that “truth is what you make it” group.
"I ready talked about why the Church fathers are important earlier in this reply, but your view on this is understandable given the church fathers, the saints, and the church all tell you your idea is false and heresy..." 🤣 " and you have to justify that on the claim the church fathers don't matter and only scripture dose so the good old protestant sola-scriptura doctrine and because scripture specifically the new-testament does not dive in your abnormal ideologies of christianity(nor support them) you think you can justify on just that, and that's just not how the church works your baseless accusations and opinions don't falsify the almost 2000-year-old church build of holy church traditions based on Holy scriputra and the holy fathers, and no I dont like orthropax more and even if I did that dosent shouldnt push me to be orthoprax Im looking for the truth not a heresy, and to be honest your views are not new theres multiple teachers and hertics who at all points of history preached this subjective truth philosophy some of them going to the extreme and saying all religions point to one GOD but your view is just a subgroup of that “truth is what you make it” group." Wow. You aren't making any effort to understand what I'm saying. The sola scriptura doctrine doesn't apply to me. Your views on heresy are contradictory to what the Bible teaches. I have a video about heresy in which I explain what the Bible says about it. I don't think truth is subjective. I'm not saying that all religions point to one God. In my "Which Religion (If Any) Is True?" video I have spoken about this. You have completely failed to understand what I'm teaching. What I'm teaching requires an open mind. It's all about freeing your mind from any control (i.e. church), removing the middle men (i.e. church/clergy) between you and God and following the teachings of Jesus.
@@OrthopraxChristianity Absolutely agree, it's about removing the middle man ( the church and clergy ). ...The indoctrinated religious folk have a real hard time grasping the concept that, God the creator exists independently of man made religions.
part 5 “That's like saying that Hagia Sophia was built by Muslims just because it's now a mosque..” Like I said thats a biblical fact any historian who believes the apostles existed wont doubt this St. Mark's work in Rome led him to Alexandria, the capital of Egypt. “"Eastern Orthodox Christianity is different from country to country. That's why you have the "Bulgarian Orthodox Church", "Serbian Orthodox Church", "Russian Orthodox Church", etc. No they are not all of those churches are in communion under the eastern orthodox branch they have the same theological doctrinal beliefs the names is only based on were that church started and because the eastern orthodox dont believe in papal infallibility like the Catholics this will make sense. But all of the eastern orthodox churches do list the patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals almost being some sort of unifier in those churches but he has no authority to mingle in those churches' jurisdictions. “Beliefs are not facts. I believe in Christianity but not in Islam or just the Old Testament. I have good reasons for that. Islam claims to succeed Christianity but then contradicts Christianity. The New Testament completes the Old Testament. There is no good reason to accept the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. The people who do so are ethnically Jews and they want to be special, which is what the Old Testament tells them. So they stick to the Old Testament. They don't others to be as "special" as they are.” But that's your own personal identification of what the true religion is what reason does a Muslim have to become Christian in your own logic? The whole “belief are not facts” thing is contrary to what CHRIST said his rightful claim of being the only way to Heaven and being a Christian is the acceptance of everything CHRIST said as facts because CHRIST himself claimed such things.
I have actually explained what reasons a Muslim has to become a Christian. You have quoted my explanation: "Islam claims to succeed Christianity but then contradicts Christianity." "The whole “belief are not facts” thing is contrary to what CHRIST said his rightful claim of being the only way to Heaven and being a Christian is the acceptance of everything CHRIST said as facts because CHRIST himself claimed such things." I believe that Jesus decides who goes to heaven or not. That's what He said. That doesn't mean that He will reject those who don't believe in Him or who believe in Him but from the perspective of another religion. After all, how do you know that Jesus is not Zeus? Maybe Zeus incarnated as Jesus. Many Zeus is the Angel of Yahweh that is mentioned in the Old Covenant? The Bible never says that someone who is born to atheist parents but never has heard of Christianity will not have to face judgment by Jesus. All Jesus has said is that He decides who goes to heaven.
@@OrthopraxChristianity you said a simimilar thing of budaha in which I responded Zeus had sexual immoral acts with normal humans and begoten demi gods by them he had cheated on his wife (hera) mulitiple times this is contraray to CHRIST
@@mnzdeep4258 I haven't heard of that before but it's probably an addition of late Greek religion, which is very corrupt and sexually immoral. Early Greek religion was alright. If there is a possibility that Jesus appears in another religion, He might not behave in the same way as He does in the Gospels. For example, notice how the Bible talks about Him when He returns. It's no longer "Jesus". He will not come to be crucified again and to establish a new religion. He will come to establish His kingdom.
@@OrthopraxChristianity no those go all the way back to early greek mytholgey those belife of greek mytholgey never changes. "It's no longer "Jesus". He will not come to be crucified again and to establish a new religion. He will come to establish His kingdom." but thats not contary to what he said he was unlike sexual immortality which is aginst the nature of GOD the bible makes it clear GOD hates sin with a passion, why would he show other people things contrary to his nature .
The true church of Christ is the Orthodox church. Do not listen to this deceiver who is trying to take people away from the right path. If you want to talk more, Im here for you.
"The true church of Christ is the Orthodox church." The evidence for that is what? "Do not listen to this deceiver..." Empty claim. You have no evidence that I'm deceiving anyone. "...who is trying to take people away from the right path." That's the problem right there: you think that you know the right path. That's orthodoxy in a nutshell: confusing beliefs for facts because a priest/organization "told me so".
@@OrthopraxChristianity the Orthodox church is the true path because of its descendants were the Apostles who in turn taught the early church fathers. You claim the Apostolic succession is wrong or false. Please prove how
@@voievod9260 The burden of proof is on the claimant. I'm not claiming that the so-called "apostolic succession" is true. I see no evidence for it. As I explain in the podcast, whenever I hear a story about it, it's always ridiculously fake.
A mystic is a spiritual teacher. I was planning since early 2013 to teach spirituality sometime in the future. In 2021, I began teaching the Bible in private. So then I began to think about actually launching a career as a spiritual teacher but I didn’t know what title to use. Rabbi? Pastor? Then in 2022 on January 11 it dawned on me that I’m a mystic. It’s a humble title and really refers to the ability to teach/explain difficult spiritual/theological things to people who are not spiritual.
to convert to Christianity then, is to believe with your heart in Jesus Christ as Lord son of God and to live his teachings? What is baptism then? metaphorical, or does a literal act in water take place?
Jesus set an examle of how to live, act and be spiritual. When you embrace Christianity, you accept Him as Lord and you follow His ways. If you are new to Christianity, I wouldn't worry too much about getting it all right in the beginning. Doing it step by step is enough. As for baptism, it's metaphorical. You don't need to literally perform the ritual in the water. It's nice if you can do it because it will give you nice memories and it's symbolic, but if you don't do it, you won't be any less of a Christian.
@OrthopraxChristianity if Jesus was baptized then following him is to get baptized. He's the son of God. He got baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" in his own words. If Christ's baptism fulfilled righteousness how is ours different than his? We're baptized into Christ according to scripture
In the scriptures the very first Christians were ALL baptized. Whole families were baptized. If they all got baptized clearly they didn't just see it as a nice experience and nothing more. Baptism is a physical identification with the death and resurrection. According to this logic we can toss out everything Christ demonstrated to his apostles to do. 1 - Christ builds a church 2 - scripture says to meet with the church 3 - Jesus says to the founders of the church to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of his broken body and spilled blood and indeed calls wine his blood and bread his body. Should we stop doing that because "you're still Christian if you don't "? 4 - The apostles baptized. Clearly baptism was important to them. But it's not important to you. You say believers don't even need to get baptized showing a lack of continuity with the apostles and the church itself. The apostles are a better example of the faith than you are evidently!
@@OrthopraxChristianity He that BELIEVETH on me HATH(present tense) eternal life John 6:47 “Sirs what must I do to be saved? And he said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou SHALT be saved” Acts 16:30-32 I left Orthodoxy after I realized their false traditions and legalism, something that Jesus was against. To be a Christian, one must believe on Christ that He paid their sin debt in full and rose again and that He promises eternal life to all who believe. It’s that simple. 90% of Christian churches and denominations get it wrong. Jesus said and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free(John 8).
The concept of the Trinity is older than the Church. Jews had similar concepts. The Church has their own concept of the Trinity. So do I: ruclips.net/video/OLsnR-Wphf0/видео.html
part 12 "I don't like Protestantism because it's orthodoxy." It's really not I see protestants as brothers and sisters in CHRIST but a lot of their theological standings is contrary to orthodoxy but what I think you mean by this is that both churches are governed by a theological boundary which I don't see anything wrong with. Well GOD bless you can keep the convo going if you like to hope this makes you think about your views a bit.
I meant “orthodoxy” with a lowercase “o”, not referring to Orthodox Christianity. The problem with orthodoxy is that the focus is on correct beliefs but how can you define what is correctly to belief in? It makes no sense, unless you want to control how people think. The way I deal with theological problems is by focusing on what the Bible says and by drawing the line at occultism, collectivism and orthodoxy.
Subbed. Instantly. You just articulated a lot that I've been trying to, and gave validation to me deep suspicion of all extant Churches. I even tried to get Orthodox, I for it a shot...I started the Catechumenate...but, something was wrong. It's like, Christ is the Logos and the Logos is beautiful, and in any place where the Logos is somewhat present, you'll be moved and the spirit will rush to you. But it's still a thing that's man made. When the Ortho Church says "this *is* the church".... Nah. It's obviously not. Sorry. The Church is a humanity-wide project. The Church doesn't have a national flag.
Originally before our era, nations were divided. This is why there are national churches. Today nations are mixing a lot especially in the west. So national churches are becoming less normative
This is a new movement 🥰. There is no church yet. I'm working on building the movement and theology from scratch (no reforming like in case of Protestantism). For Orthoprax Christianity you don't need a church. I'm hoping to be able to establish a temple later on because it's nice to have a community with like-minded people; but unlike in case of Catholicism, Orthodoxy Christianity and Protestantism, no church is required. In Orthoprax Christianity there is no clergy that stands between you and God. You have to be spiritual.
@Orthoprax Christianity I don't think their should be a church cause. Honestly, I'm trying to look where it says we need a church. I can only find verse saying two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them...honestly I'm just done with these people a long time ago I left christianity and did witchcraft but God found me during covid I have never felt this close to God before everytime I study by myself I feel good I learn new things I feel myself getting closer to God but once I start talking to so called Christians and couple nonbelievers I feel bad I question things, theirs times where i know im not wrong but i apologize and they don't return the favor, as a woman its hard sometimes. So far, Orthodox Christians , Muslims and Christians who have a relationship with God and not religious are the best they have made me feel welcome... Do you have instagram?
Congregations were founded by apostles and mentioned by them, most notably Apostle Paul. He wrote letters to them, such as to the congregation at Colossae, which was founded by his colleague Epaphras. "Congreation" (Greek "Ekklesia") is usually translated as "church". So the idea and importance of having Christian communities is present in the Bible, but ultimately, it's all about spirituality. You are thus right, we don't need a "church"/community/congregation. There is no "one true church". "...honestly I'm just done with these people a long time ago I left christianity and did witchcraft..." I'm not surprised. Whatever passes today as "Christianity" is orthodox organized religion in which you are being scared into submission and are not allowed to freely think for yourself. Jesus taught spirituality, but churches today teach blind obedience to them. Witchcraft/occultism, on the other hand, gives you all kinds of "goodies" and then you are free to do with them as you please. It feels very empowering. You can see the result of this in the Balkans. There are witches/occultists everywhere and the Orthodox Church isn't doing anything about it. The truth is, both are deceptions of course. "...but God found me during covid I have never felt this close to God before everytime I study by myself I feel good I learn new things I feel myself getting closer to God..." That's the point, learning 🥰. When Jesus began His ministry, He clashed with the clergy of His time. There is no need for them. Teachers are needed to help out with learning, but nobody should stand between you and God. "...before everytime I study by myself I feel good I learn new things I feel myself getting closer to God but once I start talking to so called Christians and couple nonbelievers I feel bad I question things..." Yeah. Don't care about them. Questioning things is the way to go! In India there are gurus ("guru" means "teacher"). Indians love to gather in places and hear them talk. In Hinduism there is no "one true church". It's all orthopraxy and spirituality, not about organization religion at all. I love that. It was kinda like that in ancient Israel. Nothing like that exists in the Western World anymore, but it did before the Church. Philosophy in the Western World has been invented by the ancient Greeks, for example. "So far, Orthodox Christians , Muslims and Christians who have a relationship with God and not religious are the best they have made me feel welcome..." I'm surprised to hear that. In my experience, there are two types of Orthodox Christians. The first one is the average Orthodox Christian. They are mostly cultural Christians who have no idea what's in the Bible. The second one are the practicing Orthodox Christians. They are intolerant of other forms of Christianity, except Catholicism. Muslims are not spiritual at all. Islam is mostly a culture, but in my experience, they are extremely intolerant towards other religions. "Do you have instagram?" I don't. If you do, you can mail the link to me at manuel@orthopraxchristianity.org if you don't want to post it here. I have been thinking about creating an instagram account for Orthoprax Christianity but I'm not sure what to post there.
He just invented a new religion built on mocking the existing ones. He left the body of Christ (the Orthodox church) because he tninks its false. He is starting up his own (heretical) church. We must pray for him.
I love that question. I will make a video about this one day. Thanks! I think that both are fake. Have you noticed that it's only Catholics and Orthodox Christians who make such claims? The rest of the world doesn't. Both Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity relies on the apostolic succession claims. They are desperate to prove to the world that they are the one "true church". I think that they are so desperate to convince themselves and the rest of the world of that that they make up things like the holy fire on Easter and incorruptibility. I see no evidence for such claims.
@OrthopraxChristianity Isn't it theoretically possible for miracles to happen? If Christ's apostles did them then it's possible for them to occur in our time. Unless you are secessionist?
@@prayunceasingly2029he Holy Fire miracle occurs only on Orthodox Pascha (Easter). This guy (channel) is a liar and a deceiver and he goes around saying that Orthodoxy is not the true church without showing any proof (because there is none). He won't listen to reason or historical facts. The Holy Fire miracle is something anyone can experience just by being in the Church of the holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. I'd like to see how this liar can prove that someone who puts the Holy Fire to its beard or hair does not catch fire...
part 7 “You don't know if Jesus died and was resurrected. Like me, you believe in those claims but you haven't been there to witness it.” If i dont know JESUS died for me and resructed in 3 days that means my whole faith is pointless because there would always be this slight chance that all of this is false and there is nothing in the next world “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins”. 1 Corinthians 15:14 “I do not claim that my beliefs are facts. I'm not standing in between God and people like your church does. I'm teaching Christianity by encouraging people to connect to God directly and to think for themselve” The church is the body of CHRIST “And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” Colossians 1:8 The church is the place where the HOLY SPIRIT dwells “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him, you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:19-22. The Church is the way GOD works in the world the last hope of this worldly world is the church, because there's a doctrinal line that separates Christianity from anything thats is contrary to it doesn't mean the church is standing between GOD and people the church is the HOLY TEMPLE of GOD that he dwells in a place were his people might know him, and because of that the church protects of any hersical ideas that separates us from GOD and because your view is one of the hersical ones you somehow thing the church is getting in between people relationship of GOD to expect for elevate our relationship with him.
"The church is the body of CHRIST" That's not what the Bible says. It may be what a translation of the Bible says. The Bible says that believers are the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:27 for example, "Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually." "The church is the place where the HOLY SPIRIT dwells" That's also not what the Bible says. "“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him, you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:19-22." That's what it says indeed. It's not talking about "the church", which is what I think you are thinking about. It's talking about the Ekklesia, which is the community of believers. Jesus is the cornerstone of that. "The Church is the way GOD works in the world the last hope of this worldly world is the church, because there's a doctrinal line that separates Christianity from anything thats is contrary to it doesn't mean the church is standing between GOD and people the church is the HOLY TEMPLE of GOD that he dwells in a place were his people might know him, and because of that the church protects of any hersical ideas that separates us from GOD and because your view is one of the hersical ones you somehow thing the church is getting in between people relationship of GOD to expect for elevate our relationship with him." That's so confusing to read. The focus is on the Ekklesia, it's not on some organization that God has instituted for believers. There is no "heresy". I have made a video about heresy. God doesn't need an organization to talk to us or keep us in check. A physical temple/church is meant for a community of believers. It's not like there should be one big church for all Christians. The Bible never says that.
@@OrthopraxChristianity "That's what it says indeed. It's not talking about "the church", which is what I think you are thinking about. It's talking about the Ekklesia, which is the community of believers. Jesus is the cornerstone of that." that would be understandable because that was what the Christian church was at that time there were no other group of beleivers who clamied to be Christians and followed contary to what the bible taught it was either you were a Jew a pagan or christian but after time went on those group of belivers the (church) were faced with hersical ideas of christianity which was contatrary to what CHRIST taught and because of that they needed to enforce creeds so everybody will understand the theolgical implications of christianity as preached by the apostles galations 1:6-10 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. so its ovious christianity is not a open box of ideas with no indections of whats right or wrong the apostles themself were adament about keeping to every word they said and rejecting anything contarat to that, thats why the church right know become a kind of organization (as it seems to you) because it needed to protect herself from false doctrine.
@@mnzdeep4258 There is a problem with that explanation. In the Old Covenant, God was sending prophets to Israel and they were still making a mess out of everything. They even wanted king to rule over them instead of God. They got the Temple, but Israel split up in two and messed up again. The Babylonians came and destroyed the Temple. As soon as God stopped sending prophets, various groups emerged, like the Pharisees who wanted power. They made all kinds of claims, such as having the Oral Torah. They became enemies of Jesus but look at what Jews are today saying: the Pharisees preserved their culture and religion and made sure there were no "heresies" in Judaism. The whole point of the Bible, especially the New Covenant, is that people are corrupt. Even when God is sending prophets people mess up. So why would you think that after the Bible was written, a group of humans were needed to preserve the religion and make sure that there are no "heresies"? Christianity doesn't need their own Pharisees but that's what we got with the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches. They are doing what the Pharisees were doing. When Jesus began His ministry, they accused Him of all kinds of heresies. "so its ovious christianity is not a open box of ideas with no indections of whats right or wrong..." Just listen to my videos. I'm against degeneracy, Pharisaic behavior, occultism, orthodoxy, collectivism, etc. I draw a clear line between right and wrong. Shouldn't that be enough? I mean, why allow a group of people to dictate to us what is "correct" to believe in? If we behave in accordance to the Bible, what more do we need?
@Orthoprax Christianity If 'we' believe in accordance with the Bible, then we become a group of people that will tell other people are wrong if they don't comply with the Bible. Your argument doesn't work.
part 10 "You can do that too. It only has to do with spirituality if the purpose is to improve yourself. Jews have the Kabbalah but what's the point? Their religion doesn't teach either occultism or spirituality. Likewise, you can fast and pray everyday, but when is it spiritual? See, the problem with orthodoxy is that the church stands between you and God. That's what blocking the orthodox from being spiritual”. You have a weird understanding of the term spiritual if being spiritual is being filled with the HOLY SPIRIT were you can't find in any other religions orthodoxy has it and the reason the Jews are not “Spiritual” is because they don't have no understanding of who THE SPIRIT is. And discarding yourself and following CHRIST is the best Spirtuaily there is and that's prevalent in orthodox monotheism “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, and another has that. Now to the unmarried and widows, I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am”. 1 Corinthians 7:8 “On the authority of logic. Take a look at Hindus or Buddhists. These guys are spiritual (aside from some Buddhists). They have no organization telling them what they can and cannot believe. We are very unfortunate to not have that in Christianity. As I have said earlier, the church even executed people for having different beliefs. Why would you want to even listen to such an organization? Wouldn't you want to be free from that?” I just proved your Logical understanding of Christianity is false they cant be Spiritual because they reject the HOLY SPIRIT and Christ being spiritual is not just living an esthetic life if I made it look like that in my previous comment that was my mistake course living and esthetic life is important but if your living to lifestyle without the Acknowledgment of YAHWEH, ELOHIM, IMMANUEL, JESUS CHRIST, HOLY SPIRIT, HOLY GHOST in whatever name in this list you decide to call GOD then its pointless .
Spirituality is an experience. It's connecting to God (or whatever divinity you are looking for). Improving yourself. You have to do all of that on your own. A teacher can help you with that, but nobody should stand between you and God, like in happens in case of orthodoxy. You immediately think in terms of your own theology, which is why it's so hard for you to understand me. "I just proved your Logical understanding of Christianity is false they cant be Spiritual because they reject the HOLY SPIRIT and Christ..." This is what I'm talking about. Your theology serves as your box and you cannot think outside of this box. Neither Hindus or Buddhists reject the Holy Spirit or Christ. They have their own theology that teaches them how to connect to the divine and improve themselves. An orthodox Hindu might say that you are rejecting Brahman and Shiva, therefore you cannot be spiritual. That wouldn't make any sense. If that was the case, it would be proven and therefore it wouldn't be a religion. "...being spiritual is not just living an esthetic life if I made it look like that in my previous comment that was my mistake course living and esthetic life is important but if your living to lifestyle without the Acknowledgment of YAHWEH, ELOHIM, IMMANUEL, JESUS CHRIST, HOLY SPIRIT, HOLY GHOST in whatever name in this list you decide to call GOD then its pointless ." You haven't seen Yahweh, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Like me, you believe in Them but you don't know for sure. It should be a personal experience. Not something to treat as facts outside of your person experience.
part 6 “It's the truth for you. You believe in it. There are Hindus who believe in Shiva. How would you like it if they would tell you that you believe in a false religion and that you need to convert to Hinduism because it's the "truth"? The "truth" according to whom? See my point” Like I said the truth is objective, not subjective there is only one Truth, for example, let's say your name is Thomas its ethire your name is Thomas or not, it cant be Matthew, john, or Williams because you only have one name and that is Thomas, same with Christianity if those religions are right it simply means Christianity is wrong, Christianity always presented herself as the only truth just like JESUS presented himself to be the only truth. I think the idea that truth is subjective and a matter of personal taste is derived from fear to say anything contradictory to that truth is false and the acknowledgment of any truths besides Christianity is contradicting JESUS which wouldn't be Christianity. “I disagree with that. You don't need the Nicea Council or anyone to tell you what you should believe. Christianity is a religion. It's unproven. So you can believe in it or you can reject it. More than that is not needed”. But your a direct result of that the doctrine of the TRINITY was not cemented until the first Nicea Council not saying they made it up or founded it but thats when it was cemented as doctrine. And that's how the apostles decide on what hersey or not also on ecumenical councils of their own you can find that in the book of Acts when there was this heresy going around the Christian converts needed to follow the Mosiac law.
"Like I said the truth is objective, not subjective there is only one Truth, for example, let's say your name is Thomas its ethire your name is Thomas or not, it cant be Matthew, john, or Williams because you only have one name and that is Thomas, same with Christianity if those religions are right it simply means Christianity is wrong, Christianity always presented herself as the only truth just like JESUS presented himself to be the only truth." You sound so confusing. A name is just a name. It's a simple concept. A religion is a set of beliefs. It's not simple at all. It cannot be compared to something as simple as a name. Christianity never presents itself as the only truth. Jesus said that He is the truth. That doesn't invalidate another religion at all. The Bible never attacks other religions (only the corruption in those religions). Jesus was even first embraced by Zoroastrians. How can there even be "one true" religion? The New Covenant is based on the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is based on the Canaanite religion. Look at its pantheon, it includes Yahweh. The Canaanite religions has been influenced by other religions in the area, including the Egyptian religion. The Egyptian religion seems be largely new. It might have originated from Shamanism or some other ancient form of religious practices. There is just no way a complicated religion like Christianity can be founded out of the blue. In fact, the New Covenant borrows from the Greek religion and Zoroastrianism. The Greek religion was older than Judaism and had a better understanding of the soul and many other things. "I think the idea that truth is subjective and a matter of personal taste is derived from fear to say anything contradictory to that truth is false and the acknowledgment of any truths besides Christianity is contradicting JESUS which wouldn't be Christianity." The truth is objective. I agree with that. The truth is not always as simple as "1 + 1 = 2". Christianity is a religion. It's not a science. It's unproven. It makes a lot of claims, but it never attacks other religions. It's in fact very similar to Buddhism. Both Buddhism and Christianity can be true. They don't contradict each other. What happened is that the (Catholic) Church and translators of the Bible have interpreted the Bible in accordance to their understanding and beliefs at the time. For example, they make it look like reincarnation doesn't take place in the Bible, like it does in Buddhism. The Bible talks about Christians being "resurrected", which is the Biblical way of saying that we will be reincarnated in heaven. The Bible also leaves out many details, which has influenced the way theologians interpret the Bible. "“I disagree with that. You don't need the Nicea Council or anyone to tell you what you should believe. Christianity is a religion. It's unproven. So you can believe in it or you can reject it. More than that is not needed”. But your a direct result of that the doctrine of the TRINITY was not cemented until the first Nicea Council not saying they made it up or founded it but thats when it was cemented as doctrine." The Nicea Council is totally irrelevant to me. Before the Roman Church, Jews had similar concepts like the Trinity. The idea of having a trinity is a regular occurrence in religions. The Egyptian religion has one. Hinduism has one too (the Trimurti). The New Covenant mentions the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit and the Roman church has put a label on that and that's it. It's not like they have invented the concept of the Trinity. The Christianity that I'm teaching has nothing at all to do with Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity or Protestantism. It's totally new, started from scratch and based on studying theology.
@@OrthopraxChristianity Your not teaching christianity your not even sure yourself if christianity is the right religion, like I said the apostles always presented christianity as the only truth not a form of truth Paul even goes as far to say if the concept of the resurction was false the whole Christian falls apart, and with that understanding he was still christian which proves he was 100% sure JESUS was who he said he was. "The Bible never attacks other religions (only the corruption in those religions)." Revelation 21:8 " But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” "sorcerers" and "Idolaters" theres alot of pagan religions who use sorcerey as the bible decribes it in ther religion same with Idolaters those can be Buddhism and Hinduism. deuteronomy 18:9 "“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. so its obvious the bible presents herself as the only truth if that was not true why would moses be so mad when the isarlties were worshiping the golden calf. "The Old Covenant is based on the Canaanite religion." what lmao after all of the bible warnings of not adopting religions and practices of forgein countrys you think it was imapcted by a forgein religion, and what canaanite religion as much as I know alot of the canaanites worshiped mulitiple gods. "There is just no way a complicated religion like Christianity can be founded out of the blue." this proves to me you dont really belive in the christiain GOD because if you were you wouldve have been satasfied with the biblical answer of GOD gave moses the 10 commandments and thats when it started. the "the Trimurti" is not in any way related to the Trinity the trimurti are 3 individual gods with different ensces and wills one creates another protoctes and onther destroys this is not the TRINITY the trinity is 1 GOD but in different manifistaions they have the same Will and are one the SPIRIT proceedes from the FATHER and the SON as the word of the Father procceds from the Father also, and the old testmeant did not diffrinate the TRINITY indivuialy like for example the bible says Jacob wrestled with GOD but alot of scholors interpret that as JESUS in flesh in the old testament same when moses was described as talking with GOD thats understood as JESUS leaving his glory to talk with moses, the point is the TRINITY is 1 GOD and no religions clamed this like christianity does and theres no evidence of Judaism adopting any cannanite religion when the bible itslef is so hard press about them not doing that.
@@mnzdeep4258 "Your not teaching christianity your not even sure yourself if christianity is the right religion," I haven't studied them all. The ones that I have studied and consider to be true are Christianity and Hinduism. "like I said the apostles always presented christianity as the only truth not a form of truth Paul even goes as far to say if the concept of the resurction was false the whole Christian falls apart, and with that understanding he was still christian which proves he was 100% sure JESUS was who he said he was." I agree with Apostle Paul. '"The Bible never attacks other religions (only the corruption in those religions)." Revelation 21:8 " But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” "sorcerers" and "Idolaters" theres alot of pagan religions who use sorcerey as the bible decribes it in ther religion same with Idolaters those can be Buddhism and Hinduism.' I'm openly against occultism. That's one of my core teachings. Buddhists and Hindus don't worship idiols. There are who Hindus who use idols but they don't worship them. "deuteronomy 18:9 "“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. so its obvious the bible presents herself as the only truth..." That happened when Pagans became corrupt. The Egyptians, for example, practiced occultism. That's a good example of an abominable practice of a nation. That's all that verse is saying, not that the Bible is the "only truth". "...if that was not true why would moses be so mad when the isarlties were worshiping the golden calf." "The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent," - Acts 17:30. God was teaching the Israelites a new religion. Their old one (where calf worship is normal) had to go and make room for the new one, which doesn't include idol worshiping. '"The Old Covenant is based on the Canaanite religion." what lmao after all of the bible warnings of not adopting religions and practices of forgein countrys you think it was imapcted by a forgein religion, and what canaanite religion as much as I know alot of the canaanites worshiped mulitiple gods.' They had to start somewhere. The Canaanite religion was indeed not organized. Worship of El and Yahweh preceeds Judaism. They were first worshipped in the Levant. It's therefore not a foreign religion. El even had a wife, Asherah. Judaism didn't start from stratch. '"There is just no way a complicated religion like Christianity can be founded out of the blue." this proves to me you dont really belive in the christiain GOD because if you were you wouldve have been satasfied with the biblical answer of GOD gave moses the 10 commandments and thats when it started.' I don't understand what you are talking about here. I'm totally alright with the 10 Commandments. 'the "the Trimurti" is not in any way related to the Trinity the trimurti are 3 individual gods with different ensces and wills one creates another protoctes and onther destroys this is not the TRINITY the trinity is 1 GOD but in different manifistaions they have the same Will and are one the SPIRIT proceedes from the FATHER and the SON as the word of the Father procceds from the Father also,' I have never said that the Hindu Trinity is the same as the Christian Trinity. The Hindu Trinity is also one God. Hinduism is monotheism. The Hindu Trinity represent different forms of God, hence the word "trimurti". "Tri" is three and "murti" means "form". "... and theres no evidence of Judaism adopting any cannanite religion when the bible itslef is so hard press about them not doing that." So what are then El and Yahweh doing in the Canaanite pantheon?
@@OrthopraxChristianity Yahweh was not in the canaanite pantheon this is a debunked theory it starts with the notion or philiophy that man created GOD in their image expect for the exact opposite. the egyptiaon doccuments report the name JWH, not Yahweh similiar spelling dose not mean same GOD YAHWEH probbaly just means "I am" and alot of sechular scolars who do claim such a thing atrubiute that as when the isarlties 40 years in the desert they would have been influenced by nations in the surrounding areas such as the Edomites, descendants of Esau, and the Canaanites. and atruibte the theology of those gods to the GOD they claim to follow not that YAHWEH evolved before juadism to modern day Juadsism since the creation of the religion (in the way you indicate it) , similiar spelling does not indicate same GOD at all.
@@mnzdeep4258 "Yahweh was not in the canaanite pantheon this is a debunked theory it starts with the notion or philiophy that man created GOD in their image expect for the exact opposite." What a weird statement 🤔. Why would that notion/philosophy even be relevant when discussing the Canaanite pantheon? Yahweh being in the Canaanite pantheon is not a theory at all. You can read about it in encyclopedias. While you are at it, look up El as well. He also appears in the Canaanite pantheon. "the egyptiaon doccuments report the name JWH, not Yahweh similiar spelling dose not mean same GOD YAHWEH probbaly just means "I am" and alot of sechular scolars who do claim such a thing atrubiute that as when the isarlties 40 years in the desert they would have been influenced by nations in the surrounding areas such as the Edomites, descendants of Esau, and the Canaanites." Your argument is basically that the tetragrammaton YHWH doesn't mean "Yahweh" when it's used in the Canaanite religion but it's "Yahweh" when it's used in the Old Covenant? In Hebrew, you don't write vowels down. You have to remember the vowels, but the vowels in case of YHWH were not remembered. That's all.
You have very "mystical" advertisements from RUclips during your videos... like magical weight loss or magical stones... those are not random, they just represent what your contingent is interested in apart from "mystical Christianity"
“But there’s no evidence for that.” Ok, if we follow your logic, is there evidence about Biblical stories then? Just because you don’t trust the tradition of the Church doesn’t mean that there is no evidence. What do you want, scientific evidence that shows that the Apostles founded churches in Georgia or that the Church fathers knew the Apostles? They were ordained by the Apostles and then they ordained other bishops. That’s what’s called apostolic succession, how can you prove that the Orthodox Church doesn’t have it? Plus, you explained the theology of the Church in quite a wrong way.
"Ok, if we follow your logic, is there evidence about Biblical stories then?" At the beginning of this video, I say, "The error that I most often came across is their believe in what they believe to be correct. That’s orthodoxy. It’s the inability to separate beliefs and facts from each other. They are so obsessed with believing in the truth, that they don’t see the contradiction in that. You don’t need to believe in the truth. Claims require you to believe in them. A claim might be true, but you don’t know that until the claim has been proven to be true. Then it stops being a claim. When a religion is proven, it stops being a religion." I acknowledge that Christianity is not proven. I don't act like it's proven. That's what the orthodox do. "Just because you don’t trust the tradition of the Church doesn’t mean that there is no evidence." If there was evidence, it wouldn't be a belief. It's a Catholic/Orthodox belief but Catholics and Orthodox Christians think it's a fact. "What do you want, scientific evidence that shows that the Apostles founded churches in Georgia or that the Church fathers knew the Apostles? They were ordained by the Apostles and then they ordained other bishops." You keep on proving my point about orthodoxy. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Apostles founded Catholic/Orthodox churches. They founded churches, we know that from history, but they were not Catholic/Orthodox churches. Those churches were converted later on to Catholic/Orthodox churches. "That’s what’s called apostolic succession, how can you prove that the Orthodox Church doesn’t have it?" I'm not making the claim, so the prove of burden is not on me. "Plus, you explained the theology of the Church in quite a wrong way." Feel free to point out what I got wrong.
Thanks for the invitation but I have already taken a look at Oriental Orthodox Christianity, i.e.: ruclips.net/user/shortsMYczTQkchcg I'm an anabaptist, BTW.
Okay, in a calm demeanor I will ask some fair questions. Are you an authority on ancient manuscripts? How is that you have missed the fact that the church fathers as early as Iraneaus wrote the Book on heretical teachings? He laid out what was and what was NOT a church practice. Since there are no other surviving criticisms of this document saying it was not really what the Church taught and Iraneaus was 'off his rockers', wouldn't it then, be safe to assume he was correct? This would mean that folks such as even ourselves today cannot claim what IS a church practice just because we think it 'makes sense. ' who are you? What church do you attend and who founded it?
"Are you an authority on ancient manuscripts?" I'm not. "How is that you have missed the fact that the church fathers as early as Iraneaus wrote the Book on heretical teachings?" I don't care what the Church Fathers have written. They are not part of my religion. There is no evidence for the apostolic succession. I'm a student of theology. I'm primarily concerned with scriptural theology and not with denominational theology. Unfortunately, the Church has brainwashed people into believing that there is no difference between these two. They position themselves as the "original church" and in doing so, they claim a monopoly on Christianity, which is exactly what the Pharisees did with Judaism. They fought against Jesus because of that. You might have asked Him, "How is that you have missed the fact that the Pharisees as early as first Temple taught the Oral Law?" "He laid out what was and what was NOT a church practice." I don't know what he did but sure, I believe you. He laid out what was heresy in the Church. Great. That has nothing to do with me, though. "Since there are no other surviving criticisms of this document saying it was not really what the Church taught and Iraneaus was 'off his rockers', wouldn't it then, be safe to assume he was correct?" Perhaps. I don't know because Irenaeus is not in the Bible and I have no reason to care about him or his work. "This would mean that folks such as even ourselves today cannot claim what IS a church practice just because we think it 'makes sense." I don't claim what a church practice is. The word "church" doesn't even appear in the Bible. It's a made up word. The Bible talks about "ekklesia" instead, which means "community" or "congregation". "' who are you?" Manuel Miloslavia. A spiritual teacher. "What church do you attend and who founded it?" I'm establishing Orthoprax Christianity, a new Christian denomination. I'm seeing Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism failing left and right, especially in the West (and East Europe). They have have had no good influence in my life, only negative influence. So I want to do something about it.
Thanks for making these videos. I know there is truth / God but don't think i connect to him via any denominational man made religions. I feel connected to God when I'm in nature not when I'm in a church or Liturgy
Orthodoxy is not man made and it is pre denominational. The Orthodox church has direct link to the Apostles of Jesus. In order to receive communion with Christ (the Holy Eucharist) we must be in the church and of the church. Do not listen to this deceiver and liar who is spreading poison. His is a man made heretical religion which tries to pull people away from the right path
part4 ‘No you don't. You believe in creationism. Have you witnessed God creating humans?”. That's a dumb question have you seen Christopher Colombus find America (doesn't matter if you believe he was the one that found America or not) no but you still know America's existence have you seen george washington being elected a president no but you still know he was the first president of the united states “that doesn't make my statement false. I didn't mention Ethiopia because Ethiopia was not relevant to the point that I was trying to make. The West didn't care about Ethiopia. In fact, neither did the rest of the world, aside from Ethiopia, Coptics and who else? Wherever you go in the world, when you come across Christianity, it's likely connected to the Catholic Church. The Roman Empire embraced Christianity. Then the East-West Schism happened and the Orthodox Church was born, which is now dominant in Eastern Europe. Then the Reformation happened, which was a rebellion against the Catholic Church. It resulted in int Protestantism, which is now dominant in many parts of the West. Thanks to colonialism, Catholicism is now dominant in South America, Mexico, the Philippines, etc. The Ethiopian Church didn't have much of an impact on the world and that's fine” But you made it look like the whole faith was corrupted by the roman empire that's why I brought up Ethiopia and the oriental orthodox family because most of them are not even in Europe I brought that up to prove to you the whole faith didn't get “corrupted” (which again there is no evidence for this) by the Romans or roman paganism because that would be historical ignorance and difference between the catholic church and the orthodox and oriental orthodox are merely doctrinal which couldn't be impacted by any form of pagan distortion or corruption which again brings me to the question if the early Christian church was somehow corrupted by the Romans how are the churches outside Europe and outside roman jurisdiction get impacted also.
"That's a dumb question have you seen Christopher Colombus find America (doesn't matter if you believe he was the one that found America or not) no but you still know America's existence have you seen george washington being elected a president no but you still know he was the first president of the united states" There is historical evidence for Christopher Columbus and George Washington. "But you made it look like the whole faith was corrupted by the roman empire that's why I brought up Ethiopia and the oriental orthodox family because most of them are not even in Europe I brought that up to prove to you the whole faith didn't get “corrupted” (which again there is no evidence for this) by the Romans or roman paganism because that would be historical ignorance and difference between the catholic church and the orthodox and oriental orthodox are merely doctrinal which couldn't be impacted by any form of pagan distortion or corruption which again brings me to the question if the early Christian church was somehow corrupted by the Romans how are the churches outside Europe and outside roman jurisdiction get impacted also." I was talking specifically about Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism. Oriental Orthodox Christianity was not even on my mind. I'm a Westerner (with ties to Eastern Europe). I speak to Westerners in my videos. I don't know if the Ethiopian Church has inherited anything from Paganism. I'm pretty sure that you will find in China, South Korea or Japan some weird form of Christianity that is free from Paganism and Roman influences. I can't know everything. So I speak in general terms to Westerners in my videos.
part 2 "Because it's the same religion?” that dose not even make sense the only thing that different communions of orthodox will have in common is dogma and doctrine not tradition so “Because it's the same religion” really dose not make sense “That is 100% correct. I don't need their support. I don't believe in the apostolic succession”. You dont need to believe in apostolic succession, for example, a lot of protestant reformers brought the apostolic fathers in their writings a lot the apostolic fathers teach dogmas there were there in the early church and they were also closer to the apostolic time than we are for example the apostle Paul had a disciple Timothy he wrote a letter to him in one of his Pauline epistles and Timothy would be considered as an apostolic father and you can take his words in face value because he was taught directly by Paul himself and there's also disciplines of Timothy and the Disciples of the other apostles and their disciples they are all considered as the early fathers and some of those fathers are from as early as the 2nd century or 3rd century making them closer to the apostles and believe it or not the religion you're in right now was built by those fathers. “See, this is the problem with orthodox people: confusing beliefs for facts. You believe in apostolic succession. It's a belief. There is no evidence to support it. It's fine if you believe it” Lack I just said the lack of evidence dose does not make the fact untrue for example Leucippus of Miletus born in the 5th century Bce first brought the Idea of atomic philosophy but he didn't have any way of proving that didn't mean he was wrong seen more then 2 thousand years later his philosophy was proven right by a chemist.
@@OrthopraxChristianity no Christian dénomination is true. Swedenborg has the only theology that makes sense. Check out the theology section of his Wikipedia page. And the page about The new church (swedenborgianism). All his books are free to download on the Swedenborg foundation website. In Secrets of heaven he explains the books of Genesis and exodus and in true christianity he explains the true theology. I still think mystical orthodoxy makes sense but it’s incomplete and get some things wrong.
"no Christian dénomination is true. Swedenborg has the only theology that makes sense." He founded a Christian denomination. "Check out the theology section of his Wikipedia page. And the page about The new church (swedenborgianism)." I just did, even though I know about Emmanuel Swedenborg. "All his books are free to download on the Swedenborg foundation website. In Secrets of heaven he explains the books of Genesis and exodus and in true christianity he explains the true theology." I think that he's cool.
@@OrthopraxChristianity He did not found a christian denomination. His followers did after he died. And he always said that lives of love and truth regardless of the religion gets people to heaven.
@@OrthopraxChristianity And isn't Othoprax christianity a new denomination ? To be focused that much on theology is not good. Just find a church with people trying to be good and a wise priest even if you don't agree with everything. The purpose of religion is to get people together to celebrate God.
You said some valid things but also got some things wrong like when you said the same church didn’t allow anyone to read the Bible. Bibles were very expensive back in the day so course not many people were able to read it. When you said it took the reformation to happen before people could read the Bible is because of the development of the printing press. Which made it easier to make bibles but still costly. Also you talk about evidence but gave none when you said that the church fathers have no direct connection to the disciples of Jesus. Idk man you give out statements but provide no evidence. I’m not even catholic or orthodox btw.
"You said some valid things but also got some things wrong like when you said the same church didn’t allow anyone to read the Bible. Bibles were very expensive back in the day so course not many people were able to read it." That doesn't invalidate what I have said. The Church didn't allow people to read it. "When you said it took the reformation to happen before people could read the Bible is because of the development of the printing press. Which made it easier to make bibles but still costly." That also doesn't invalidate what I have said. The printing revolution happened before the Reformation but it was the Reformation to began to make the Bible freely available for reading by ordinary people. "Also you talk about evidence but gave none when you said that the church fathers have no direct connection to the disciples of Jesus." They made the claim of the apostolic succession, not me. The burden of evidence is on them, not me.
Church fathers are the successors of the apistles. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna for example are from st John apostle. clement I was after Peter... to say Church Fathers doesn't have any direction or continuity with the apostles is a huge fat lie
Find Christ you seem to be trying to establish your own denomination based on your own feelings you don’t seem to be looking for truth you made a short video about Orthodox Church icons and how they made you feel sad and depressed that’s your own experience in that video you cried about what it did to you how can you judge something on one perspective
You haven’t replied to any argument that I have made. Instead, you have based your entire post on alledging that I have acted on my feelings. At the end, you ask me how I can judge something on one perspective. Really? I’m amazed at the behavior of Orthodox Christians. I’m impressed by the Orthodox Church. They have mastered brainwashing the masses at a spectacular level 😮😱😳.
This is fundamentally the same as protestantism.
Not exactly. Being a Protestant means your doctrines stem specifically from the leaders of the reformation wanting to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelicals and Baptists who reject traditional Protestant beliefs or any other group that believes in reform that didnt stem from the reformation technically arent Protestant even if they’re non Catholic/non orthodox.
@@frmyt1135 so fundamentally the same as protestantism
@@sirhandel6966 Homie contemporary evangelicals and Baptists are not Baptists. Traditional Protestants wanted to reform the church as an institution from within while retaining some of its traditions. Baptists and evangelicals don’t accept that
@frmyt1135 baptists and evangelicals are even more reformers because they are even more anti Roman catholic and therefore want change away from tradition more.
@frmyt1135 the sacrament of baptism has historical support from early Christian documents.
part 11 “I'm not against denominations. "Non-denominational" in Christianity always means Protestant.”
Yea it sounds like it and almost all of your theological points are aligned with Protestantism except for the subjective truth thing.
“Liberty (freedom of speech, gun rights, property rights, etc), spirituality and brotherhood. All of it is based on the Bible. Specific details (Sabbath, heresy, divinity of Jesus, etc) are discussed in my videos.”
Those are not theological believes they are more aligned with personal believes then anything when I say “theological ties” I mean concepts that have something to do with CHRIST maybe salvation,theosis, the sacraments, etc…
Freedom of speech: Jesus got killed because of His words.
Gun rights: "Then he said to them, “But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword." - Luke 22:36.
Property rights: thou shalt not steal.
"Yea it sounds like it and almost all of your theological points are aligned with Protestantism except for the subjective truth thing."
I don't consider truth to be subjective.
This guy is just your typical younger American Protestants. Mixes Christianity with 1776 American ideology, hates any sort of organized church. Ignorance and idolatry.
This is a perfect example of why you dismiss the Church Fathers. Now that you’ve dismissed them, you can openly misinterpret Jesus saying we should be armed and ready for self defense. Never mind the fact he rebuked Peter for cutting the assistant’s ear and healed it. Never mind the fact Christ told Peter those who live by the sword die by the sword and how we should always recur to dialogue instead. Never mind the fact he said 2 swords would suffice for 13 men. Clearly Jesus wasn’t talking about self defense. The sword was necessary to fulfill the prophecy that he’d be put to death alongside the transgressors. In the very next turn of events the Romans come to apprehend him and crucify him and what does the Lord do? Accept his fate and rebukes Peter for recurring to violence. You are a false teacher and therefore a heretic. Repent.
No the Roman catholic Church is not the original church. The original Church did not believe in the filioque
What don't you like about filioque?
@@OrthopraxChristianity the point is that the early church didn't teach it...and more importantly neither did the church in Rome until after Charlemagne.
I disagree with the filioque as well. Anyways, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. So you are implying that the Church before the adoption of the filioque was the real deal. Orthodox Christianity rejects filioque. Alright, does this have anything to do with what I'm saying in the podcast/video?
@@OrthopraxChristianity You said it, not i.
I haven't mentioned filioque in the podcast. In the podcast I talk about the claims that churches (whether Catholic or Orthodox) make to justify their believe that only they are legitimate and that only they have the right to be a Christian denomination.
part 9 “We should be worried about what the truth is. We just shouldn't consider beliefs as facts. That's the difference between Orthoprax Christianity and all other forms of Christianity. It's not an orthodox system. It's a spiritual system. Oh and it has everything to do with what the apostles preached. That's why I'm quoting them all the time. It has nothing to do with the church fathers.”
The Apostles never preached this Paul himself said if there was any chance of the resurrection of JESUS be false then our whole faith is pointless “Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” 1 Corinthians 15:16-19. So as seen hear the Apostle Paul truly believed the resurrection as a fact and not some time of belief liable to error because if it wasnt our whole faith would be futile.
I see nothing in that quote from Apostle Paul that contradicts what I have said. I have said, "we should be worried about what the truth is" and then you showed me a verse in which Apostle Paul is worrying about the truth 🤷♂.
@@OrthopraxChristianity it is you dont believe christianity as being the one true religion " How can there even be "one true" religion? " you said this exaxt words ( or typed it).
part 8 "* My own interpretation of the Bible. Sure. You can say that. In the same way, I can say that follow the interpretation of the Bible from some guys who lived over 1000 years ago. The use of the word "interpretation" is completely pointless in this specific conversation. You seem to have a good understanding of Oriental Orthodox Christianity. Just fairly compare my theology with the theology of your church fathers and see which one is the best. I'm convinced that if you would do that fairly, you will like Orthoprax Christianity way more”.
I ready talked about why the Church fathers are important earlier in this reply, but your view on this is understandable given the church fathers, the saints, and the church all tell you your idea is false and heresy and you have to justify that on the claim the church fathers don't matter and only scripture dose so the good old protestant sola-scriptura doctrine and because scripture specifically the new-testament does not dive in your abnormal ideologies of christianity(nor support them) you think you can justify on just that, and that's just not how the church works your baseless accusations and opinions don't falsify the almost 2000-year-old church build of holy church traditions based on Holy scriputra and the holy fathers, and no I dont like orthropax more and even if I did that dosent shouldnt push me to be orthoprax Im looking for the truth not a heresy, and to be honest your views are not new theres multiple teachers and hertics who at all points of history preached this subjective truth philosophy some of them going to the extreme and saying all religions point to one GOD but your view is just a subgroup of that “truth is what you make it” group.
"I ready talked about why the Church fathers are important earlier in this reply, but your view on this is understandable given the church fathers, the saints, and the church all tell you your idea is false and heresy..."
🤣
" and you have to justify that on the claim the church fathers don't matter and only scripture dose so the good old protestant sola-scriptura doctrine and because scripture specifically the new-testament does not dive in your abnormal ideologies of christianity(nor support them) you think you can justify on just that, and that's just not how the church works your baseless accusations and opinions don't falsify the almost 2000-year-old church build of holy church traditions based on Holy scriputra and the holy fathers, and no I dont like orthropax more and even if I did that dosent shouldnt push me to be orthoprax Im looking for the truth not a heresy, and to be honest your views are not new theres multiple teachers and hertics who at all points of history preached this subjective truth philosophy some of them going to the extreme and saying all religions point to one GOD but your view is just a subgroup of that “truth is what you make it” group."
Wow. You aren't making any effort to understand what I'm saying. The sola scriptura doctrine doesn't apply to me. Your views on heresy are contradictory to what the Bible teaches. I have a video about heresy in which I explain what the Bible says about it. I don't think truth is subjective. I'm not saying that all religions point to one God. In my "Which Religion (If Any) Is True?" video I have spoken about this. You have completely failed to understand what I'm teaching. What I'm teaching requires an open mind. It's all about freeing your mind from any control (i.e. church), removing the middle men (i.e. church/clergy) between you and God and following the teachings of Jesus.
@@OrthopraxChristianity Absolutely agree, it's about removing the middle man ( the church and clergy ). ...The indoctrinated religious folk have a real hard time grasping the concept that, God the creator exists independently of man made religions.
part 5
“That's like saying that Hagia Sophia was built by Muslims just because it's now a mosque..”
Like I said thats a biblical fact any historian who believes the apostles existed wont doubt this St. Mark's work in Rome led him to Alexandria, the capital of Egypt.
“"Eastern Orthodox Christianity is different from country to country. That's why you have the "Bulgarian Orthodox Church", "Serbian Orthodox Church", "Russian Orthodox Church", etc.
No they are not all of those churches are in communion under the eastern orthodox branch they have the same theological doctrinal beliefs the names is only based on were that church started and because the eastern orthodox dont believe in papal infallibility like the Catholics this will make sense. But all of the eastern orthodox churches do list the patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals almost being some sort of unifier in those churches but he has no authority to mingle in those churches' jurisdictions.
“Beliefs are not facts. I believe in Christianity but not in Islam or just the Old Testament. I have good reasons for that. Islam claims to succeed Christianity but then contradicts Christianity. The New Testament completes the Old Testament. There is no good reason to accept the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. The people who do so are ethnically Jews and they want to be special, which is what the Old Testament tells them. So they stick to the Old Testament. They don't others to be as "special" as they are.”
But that's your own personal identification of what the true religion is what reason does a Muslim have to become Christian in your own logic? The whole “belief are not facts” thing is contrary to what CHRIST said his rightful claim of being the only way to Heaven and being a Christian is the acceptance of everything CHRIST said as facts because CHRIST himself claimed such things.
I have actually explained what reasons a Muslim has to become a Christian. You have quoted my explanation: "Islam claims to succeed Christianity but then contradicts Christianity."
"The whole “belief are not facts” thing is contrary to what CHRIST said his rightful claim of being the only way to Heaven and being a Christian is the acceptance of everything CHRIST said as facts because CHRIST himself claimed such things."
I believe that Jesus decides who goes to heaven or not. That's what He said. That doesn't mean that He will reject those who don't believe in Him or who believe in Him but from the perspective of another religion. After all, how do you know that Jesus is not Zeus? Maybe Zeus incarnated as Jesus. Many Zeus is the Angel of Yahweh that is mentioned in the Old Covenant? The Bible never says that someone who is born to atheist parents but never has heard of Christianity will not have to face judgment by Jesus. All Jesus has said is that He decides who goes to heaven.
@@OrthopraxChristianity you said a simimilar thing of budaha in which I responded Zeus had sexual immoral acts with normal humans and begoten demi gods by them he had cheated on his wife (hera) mulitiple times this is contraray to CHRIST
@@mnzdeep4258 I haven't heard of that before but it's probably an addition of late Greek religion, which is very corrupt and sexually immoral. Early Greek religion was alright. If there is a possibility that Jesus appears in another religion, He might not behave in the same way as He does in the Gospels. For example, notice how the Bible talks about Him when He returns. It's no longer "Jesus". He will not come to be crucified again and to establish a new religion. He will come to establish His kingdom.
@@OrthopraxChristianity no those go all the way back to early greek mytholgey those belife of greek mytholgey never changes. "It's no longer "Jesus". He will not come to be crucified again and to establish a new religion. He will come to establish His kingdom." but thats not contary to what he said he was unlike sexual immortality which is aginst the nature of GOD the bible makes it clear GOD hates sin with a passion, why would he show other people things contrary to his nature .
I want to be a real Christian but i don’t know were to begin, I am baptized in a protestant church at birth but I want guidence by god ✝️
Then you have come to the right place.
The true church of Christ is the Orthodox church. Do not listen to this deceiver who is trying to take people away from the right path.
If you want to talk more, Im here for you.
"The true church of Christ is the Orthodox church." The evidence for that is what?
"Do not listen to this deceiver..." Empty claim. You have no evidence that I'm deceiving anyone.
"...who is trying to take people away from the right path." That's the problem right there: you think that you know the right path. That's orthodoxy in a nutshell: confusing beliefs for facts because a priest/organization "told me so".
@@OrthopraxChristianity the Orthodox church is the true path because of its descendants were the Apostles who in turn taught the early church fathers.
You claim the Apostolic succession is wrong or false.
Please prove how
@@voievod9260 The burden of proof is on the claimant. I'm not claiming that the so-called "apostolic succession" is true. I see no evidence for it. As I explain in the podcast, whenever I hear a story about it, it's always ridiculously fake.
In your about it says you discovered that you were a mystic. But what does that mean?
A mystic is a spiritual teacher. I was planning since early 2013 to teach spirituality sometime in the future. In 2021, I began teaching the Bible in private. So then I began to think about actually launching a career as a spiritual teacher but I didn’t know what title to use. Rabbi? Pastor? Then in 2022 on January 11 it dawned on me that I’m a mystic. It’s a humble title and really refers to the ability to teach/explain difficult spiritual/theological things to people who are not spiritual.
@OrthopraxChristianity
How is it Humble to create your own religion and ordain yourself as having a unique connection with the mystical?
to convert to Christianity then, is to believe with your heart in Jesus
Christ as Lord son of God and to live his teachings? What is baptism then? metaphorical, or does a literal act in water take place?
Jesus set an examle of how to live, act and be spiritual. When you embrace Christianity, you accept Him as Lord and you follow His ways. If you are new to Christianity, I wouldn't worry too much about getting it all right in the beginning. Doing it step by step is enough. As for baptism, it's metaphorical. You don't need to literally perform the ritual in the water. It's nice if you can do it because it will give you nice memories and it's symbolic, but if you don't do it, you won't be any less of a Christian.
@OrthopraxChristianity if Jesus was baptized then following him is to get baptized. He's the son of God. He got baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" in his own words. If Christ's baptism fulfilled righteousness how is ours different than his? We're baptized into Christ according to scripture
In the scriptures the very first Christians were ALL baptized. Whole families were baptized. If they all got baptized clearly they didn't just see it as a nice experience and nothing more. Baptism is a physical identification with the death and resurrection. According to this logic we can toss out everything Christ demonstrated to his apostles to do.
1 - Christ builds a church
2 - scripture says to meet with the church
3 - Jesus says to the founders of the church to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of his broken body and spilled blood and indeed calls wine his blood and bread his body. Should we stop doing that because "you're still Christian if you don't "?
4 - The apostles baptized. Clearly baptism was important to them. But it's not important to you. You say believers don't even need to get baptized showing a lack of continuity with the apostles and the church itself. The apostles are a better example of the faith than you are evidently!
@@OrthopraxChristianity He that BELIEVETH on me HATH(present tense) eternal life
John 6:47
“Sirs what must I do to be saved? And he said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou SHALT be saved”
Acts 16:30-32
I left Orthodoxy after I realized their false traditions and legalism, something that Jesus was against. To be a Christian, one must believe on Christ that He paid their sin debt in full and rose again and that He promises eternal life to all who believe. It’s that simple. 90% of Christian churches and denominations get it wrong. Jesus said and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free(John 8).
@@yanni7004 "90% of Christian churches and denominations get it wrong."
Do I get it wrong?
Question: if you doubt the Church about so many things, do you believe in the Trinity because this is also a dogma of the Church?
The concept of the Trinity is older than the Church. Jews had similar concepts. The Church has their own concept of the Trinity. So do I: ruclips.net/video/OLsnR-Wphf0/видео.html
part 12 "I don't like Protestantism because it's orthodoxy."
It's really not I see protestants as brothers and sisters in CHRIST but a lot of their theological standings is contrary to orthodoxy but what I think you mean by this is that both churches are governed by a theological boundary which I don't see anything wrong with.
Well GOD bless you can keep the convo going if you like to hope this makes you think about your views a bit.
I meant “orthodoxy” with a lowercase “o”, not referring to Orthodox Christianity. The problem with orthodoxy is that the focus is on correct beliefs but how can you define what is correctly to belief in? It makes no sense, unless you want to control how people think. The way I deal with theological problems is by focusing on what the Bible says and by drawing the line at occultism, collectivism and orthodoxy.
@@OrthopraxChristianity don't Baptists also focus on what the Bible says? They believe in Sola Scriptura.
They do indeed.
1.Even if not Ortodox are you still Christian
2. If yes, do you believe Christ is lord?
1. Yes. That’s what this channel is all about.
2. Yes. I have even made a video about it: ruclips.net/video/OLsnR-Wphf0/видео.html
Subbed. Instantly.
You just articulated a lot that I've been trying to, and gave validation to me deep suspicion of all extant Churches.
I even tried to get Orthodox, I for it a shot...I started the Catechumenate...but, something was wrong.
It's like, Christ is the Logos and the Logos is beautiful, and in any place where the Logos is somewhat present, you'll be moved and the spirit will rush to you.
But it's still a thing that's man made. When the Ortho Church says "this *is* the church"....
Nah. It's obviously not. Sorry. The Church is a humanity-wide project. The Church doesn't have a national flag.
Originally before our era, nations were divided. This is why there are national churches. Today nations are mixing a lot especially in the west. So national churches are becoming less normative
@@prayunceasingly2029 Im sure some Christians used to bloodlet to cure malaria. Doesn't mean bloodletting is a best practice.
Im extremely interested in what youre saying i totally understand what youre saying...what church just i watch on here
This is a new movement 🥰. There is no church yet. I'm working on building the movement and theology from scratch (no reforming like in case of Protestantism). For Orthoprax Christianity you don't need a church. I'm hoping to be able to establish a temple later on because it's nice to have a community with like-minded people; but unlike in case of Catholicism, Orthodoxy Christianity and Protestantism, no church is required. In Orthoprax Christianity there is no clergy that stands between you and God. You have to be spiritual.
@Orthoprax Christianity I don't think their should be a church cause. Honestly, I'm trying to look where it says we need a church. I can only find verse saying two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them...honestly I'm just done with these people a long time ago I left christianity and did witchcraft but God found me during covid I have never felt this close to God before everytime I study by myself I feel good I learn new things I feel myself getting closer to God but once I start talking to so called Christians and couple nonbelievers I feel bad I question things, theirs times where i know im not wrong but i apologize and they don't return the favor, as a woman its hard sometimes. So far, Orthodox Christians , Muslims and Christians who have a relationship with God and not religious are the best they have made me feel welcome... Do you have instagram?
Congregations were founded by apostles and mentioned by them, most notably Apostle Paul. He wrote letters to them, such as to the congregation at Colossae, which was founded by his colleague Epaphras. "Congreation" (Greek "Ekklesia") is usually translated as "church". So the idea and importance of having Christian communities is present in the Bible, but ultimately, it's all about spirituality. You are thus right, we don't need a "church"/community/congregation. There is no "one true church".
"...honestly I'm just done with these people a long time ago I left christianity and did witchcraft..."
I'm not surprised. Whatever passes today as "Christianity" is orthodox organized religion in which you are being scared into submission and are not allowed to freely think for yourself. Jesus taught spirituality, but churches today teach blind obedience to them. Witchcraft/occultism, on the other hand, gives you all kinds of "goodies" and then you are free to do with them as you please. It feels very empowering. You can see the result of this in the Balkans. There are witches/occultists everywhere and the Orthodox Church isn't doing anything about it. The truth is, both are deceptions of course.
"...but God found me during covid I have never felt this close to God before everytime I study by myself I feel good I learn new things I feel myself getting closer to God..."
That's the point, learning 🥰. When Jesus began His ministry, He clashed with the clergy of His time. There is no need for them. Teachers are needed to help out with learning, but nobody should stand between you and God.
"...before everytime I study by myself I feel good I learn new things I feel myself getting closer to God but once I start talking to so called Christians and couple nonbelievers I feel bad I question things..."
Yeah. Don't care about them. Questioning things is the way to go! In India there are gurus ("guru" means "teacher"). Indians love to gather in places and hear them talk. In Hinduism there is no "one true church". It's all orthopraxy and spirituality, not about organization religion at all. I love that. It was kinda like that in ancient Israel. Nothing like that exists in the Western World anymore, but it did before the Church. Philosophy in the Western World has been invented by the ancient Greeks, for example.
"So far, Orthodox Christians , Muslims and Christians who have a relationship with God and not religious are the best they have made me feel welcome..."
I'm surprised to hear that. In my experience, there are two types of Orthodox Christians. The first one is the average Orthodox Christian. They are mostly cultural Christians who have no idea what's in the Bible. The second one are the practicing Orthodox Christians. They are intolerant of other forms of Christianity, except Catholicism. Muslims are not spiritual at all. Islam is mostly a culture, but in my experience, they are extremely intolerant towards other religions.
"Do you have instagram?"
I don't. If you do, you can mail the link to me at manuel@orthopraxchristianity.org if you don't want to post it here. I have been thinking about creating an instagram account for Orthoprax Christianity but I'm not sure what to post there.
He just invented a new religion built on mocking the existing ones.
He left the body of Christ (the Orthodox church) because he tninks its false.
He is starting up his own (heretical) church.
We must pray for him.
I don’t know what I am… I’m basically a heretic to Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants. Probably to you too. Le sigh.
What do you believe in? BTW, I have a video/podcast about heresy as well.
Interesting
awesome♥♥♥
I would be interested in your thoughts about the holy fire at the tomb at Easter and also the incorruptible saints. Thanks .
I love that question. I will make a video about this one day. Thanks!
I think that both are fake. Have you noticed that it's only Catholics and Orthodox Christians who make such claims? The rest of the world doesn't. Both Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity relies on the apostolic succession claims. They are desperate to prove to the world that they are the one "true church". I think that they are so desperate to convince themselves and the rest of the world of that that they make up things like the holy fire on Easter and incorruptibility. I see no evidence for such claims.
@OrthopraxChristianity
Isn't it theoretically possible for miracles to happen? If Christ's apostles did them then it's possible for them to occur in our time. Unless you are secessionist?
@@prayunceasingly2029he Holy Fire miracle occurs only on Orthodox Pascha (Easter).
This guy (channel) is a liar and a deceiver and he goes around saying that Orthodoxy is not the true church without showing any proof (because there is none). He won't listen to reason or historical facts.
The Holy Fire miracle is something anyone can experience just by being in the Church of the holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. I'd like to see how this liar can prove that someone who puts the Holy Fire to its beard or hair does not catch fire...
part 7 “You don't know if Jesus died and was resurrected. Like me, you believe in those claims but you haven't been there to witness it.”
If i dont know JESUS died for me and resructed in 3 days that means my whole faith is pointless because there would always be this slight chance that all of this is false and there is nothing in the next world “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins”. 1 Corinthians 15:14
“I do not claim that my beliefs are facts. I'm not standing in between God and people like your church does. I'm teaching Christianity by encouraging people to connect to God directly and to think for themselve”
The church is the body of CHRIST “And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” Colossians 1:8 The church is the place where the HOLY SPIRIT dwells “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him, you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:19-22. The Church is the way GOD works in the world the last hope of this worldly world is the church, because there's a doctrinal line that separates Christianity from anything thats is contrary to it doesn't mean the church is standing between GOD and people the church is the HOLY TEMPLE of GOD that he dwells in a place were his people might know him, and because of that the church protects of any hersical ideas that separates us from GOD and because your view is one of the hersical ones you somehow thing the church is getting in between people relationship of GOD to expect for elevate our relationship with him.
"The church is the body of CHRIST"
That's not what the Bible says. It may be what a translation of the Bible says. The Bible says that believers are the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:27 for example, "Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually."
"The church is the place where the HOLY SPIRIT dwells"
That's also not what the Bible says.
"“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him, you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:19-22."
That's what it says indeed. It's not talking about "the church", which is what I think you are thinking about. It's talking about the Ekklesia, which is the community of believers. Jesus is the cornerstone of that.
"The Church is the way GOD works in the world the last hope of this worldly world is the church, because there's a doctrinal line that separates Christianity from anything thats is contrary to it doesn't mean the church is standing between GOD and people the church is the HOLY TEMPLE of GOD that he dwells in a place were his people might know him, and because of that the church protects of any hersical ideas that separates us from GOD and because your view is one of the hersical ones you somehow thing the church is getting in between people relationship of GOD to expect for elevate our relationship with him."
That's so confusing to read. The focus is on the Ekklesia, it's not on some organization that God has instituted for believers. There is no "heresy". I have made a video about heresy. God doesn't need an organization to talk to us or keep us in check. A physical temple/church is meant for a community of believers. It's not like there should be one big church for all Christians. The Bible never says that.
@@OrthopraxChristianity "That's what it says indeed. It's not talking about "the church", which is what I think you are thinking about. It's talking about the Ekklesia, which is the community of believers. Jesus is the cornerstone of that." that would be understandable because that was what the Christian church was at that time there were no other group of beleivers who clamied to be Christians and followed contary to what the bible taught it was either you were a Jew a pagan or christian but after time went on those group of belivers the (church) were faced with hersical ideas of christianity which was contatrary to what CHRIST taught and because of that they needed to enforce creeds so everybody will understand the theolgical implications of christianity as preached by the apostles galations 1:6-10 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
so its ovious christianity is not a open box of ideas with no indections of whats right or wrong the apostles themself were adament about keeping to every word they said and rejecting anything contarat to that, thats why the church right know become a kind of organization (as it seems to you) because it needed to protect herself from false doctrine.
@@mnzdeep4258 There is a problem with that explanation. In the Old Covenant, God was sending prophets to Israel and they were still making a mess out of everything. They even wanted king to rule over them instead of God. They got the Temple, but Israel split up in two and messed up again. The Babylonians came and destroyed the Temple. As soon as God stopped sending prophets, various groups emerged, like the Pharisees who wanted power. They made all kinds of claims, such as having the Oral Torah. They became enemies of Jesus but look at what Jews are today saying: the Pharisees preserved their culture and religion and made sure there were no "heresies" in Judaism. The whole point of the Bible, especially the New Covenant, is that people are corrupt. Even when God is sending prophets people mess up. So why would you think that after the Bible was written, a group of humans were needed to preserve the religion and make sure that there are no "heresies"? Christianity doesn't need their own Pharisees but that's what we got with the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches. They are doing what the Pharisees were doing. When Jesus began His ministry, they accused Him of all kinds of heresies.
"so its ovious christianity is not a open box of ideas with no indections of whats right or wrong..."
Just listen to my videos. I'm against degeneracy, Pharisaic behavior, occultism, orthodoxy, collectivism, etc. I draw a clear line between right and wrong. Shouldn't that be enough? I mean, why allow a group of people to dictate to us what is "correct" to believe in? If we behave in accordance to the Bible, what more do we need?
@Orthoprax Christianity If 'we' believe in accordance with the Bible, then we become a group of people that will tell other people are wrong if they don't comply with the Bible. Your argument doesn't work.
part 10 "You can do that too. It only has to do with spirituality if the purpose is to improve yourself. Jews have the Kabbalah but what's the point? Their religion doesn't teach either occultism or spirituality. Likewise, you can fast and pray everyday, but when is it spiritual? See, the problem with orthodoxy is that the church stands between you and God. That's what blocking the orthodox from being spiritual”.
You have a weird understanding of the term spiritual if being spiritual is being filled with the HOLY SPIRIT were you can't find in any other religions orthodoxy has it and the reason the Jews are not “Spiritual” is because they don't have no understanding of who THE SPIRIT is. And discarding yourself and following CHRIST is the best Spirtuaily there is and that's prevalent in orthodox monotheism “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, and another has that. Now to the unmarried and widows, I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am”. 1 Corinthians 7:8
“On the authority of logic. Take a look at Hindus or Buddhists. These guys are spiritual (aside from some Buddhists). They have no organization telling them what they can and cannot believe. We are very unfortunate to not have that in Christianity. As I have said earlier, the church even executed people for having different beliefs. Why would you want to even listen to such an organization? Wouldn't you want to be free from that?”
I just proved your Logical understanding of Christianity is false they cant be Spiritual because they reject the HOLY SPIRIT and Christ being spiritual is not just living an esthetic life if I made it look like that in my previous comment that was my mistake course living and esthetic life is important but if your living to lifestyle without the Acknowledgment of YAHWEH, ELOHIM, IMMANUEL, JESUS CHRIST, HOLY SPIRIT, HOLY GHOST in whatever name in this list you decide to call GOD then its pointless .
Spirituality is an experience. It's connecting to God (or whatever divinity you are looking for). Improving yourself. You have to do all of that on your own. A teacher can help you with that, but nobody should stand between you and God, like in happens in case of orthodoxy. You immediately think in terms of your own theology, which is why it's so hard for you to understand me.
"I just proved your Logical understanding of Christianity is false they cant be Spiritual because they reject the HOLY SPIRIT and Christ..."
This is what I'm talking about. Your theology serves as your box and you cannot think outside of this box. Neither Hindus or Buddhists reject the Holy Spirit or Christ. They have their own theology that teaches them how to connect to the divine and improve themselves. An orthodox Hindu might say that you are rejecting Brahman and Shiva, therefore you cannot be spiritual. That wouldn't make any sense. If that was the case, it would be proven and therefore it wouldn't be a religion.
"...being spiritual is not just living an esthetic life if I made it look like that in my previous comment that was my mistake course living and esthetic life is important but if your living to lifestyle without the Acknowledgment of YAHWEH, ELOHIM, IMMANUEL, JESUS CHRIST, HOLY SPIRIT, HOLY GHOST in whatever name in this list you decide to call GOD then its pointless ."
You haven't seen Yahweh, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Like me, you believe in Them but you don't know for sure. It should be a personal experience. Not something to treat as facts outside of your person experience.
part 6 “It's the truth for you. You believe in it. There are Hindus who believe in Shiva. How would you like it if they would tell you that you believe in a false religion and that you need to convert to Hinduism because it's the "truth"? The "truth" according to whom? See my point”
Like I said the truth is objective, not subjective there is only one Truth, for example, let's say your name is Thomas its ethire your name is Thomas or not, it cant be Matthew, john, or Williams because you only have one name and that is Thomas, same with Christianity if those religions are right it simply means Christianity is wrong, Christianity always presented herself as the only truth just like JESUS presented himself to be the only truth. I think the idea that truth is subjective and a matter of personal taste is derived from fear to say anything contradictory to that truth is false and the acknowledgment of any truths besides Christianity is contradicting JESUS which wouldn't be Christianity.
“I disagree with that. You don't need the Nicea Council or anyone to tell you what you should believe. Christianity is a religion. It's unproven. So you can believe in it or you can reject it. More than that is not needed”.
But your a direct result of that the doctrine of the TRINITY was not cemented until the first Nicea Council not saying they made it up or founded it but thats when it was cemented as doctrine. And that's how the apostles decide on what hersey or not also on ecumenical councils of their own you can find that in the book of Acts when there was this heresy going around the Christian converts needed to follow the Mosiac law.
"Like I said the truth is objective, not subjective there is only one Truth, for example, let's say your name is Thomas its ethire your name is Thomas or not, it cant be Matthew, john, or Williams because you only have one name and that is Thomas, same with Christianity if those religions are right it simply means Christianity is wrong, Christianity always presented herself as the only truth just like JESUS presented himself to be the only truth."
You sound so confusing. A name is just a name. It's a simple concept. A religion is a set of beliefs. It's not simple at all. It cannot be compared to something as simple as a name. Christianity never presents itself as the only truth. Jesus said that He is the truth. That doesn't invalidate another religion at all. The Bible never attacks other religions (only the corruption in those religions). Jesus was even first embraced by Zoroastrians. How can there even be "one true" religion? The New Covenant is based on the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is based on the Canaanite religion. Look at its pantheon, it includes Yahweh. The Canaanite religions has been influenced by other religions in the area, including the Egyptian religion. The Egyptian religion seems be largely new. It might have originated from Shamanism or some other ancient form of religious practices. There is just no way a complicated religion like Christianity can be founded out of the blue. In fact, the New Covenant borrows from the Greek religion and Zoroastrianism. The Greek religion was older than Judaism and had a better understanding of the soul and many other things.
"I think the idea that truth is subjective and a matter of personal taste is derived from fear to say anything contradictory to that truth is false and the acknowledgment of any truths besides Christianity is contradicting JESUS which wouldn't be Christianity."
The truth is objective. I agree with that. The truth is not always as simple as "1 + 1 = 2". Christianity is a religion. It's not a science. It's unproven. It makes a lot of claims, but it never attacks other religions. It's in fact very similar to Buddhism. Both Buddhism and Christianity can be true. They don't contradict each other. What happened is that the (Catholic) Church and translators of the Bible have interpreted the Bible in accordance to their understanding and beliefs at the time. For example, they make it look like reincarnation doesn't take place in the Bible, like it does in Buddhism. The Bible talks about Christians being "resurrected", which is the Biblical way of saying that we will be reincarnated in heaven. The Bible also leaves out many details, which has influenced the way theologians interpret the Bible.
"“I disagree with that. You don't need the Nicea Council or anyone to tell you what you should believe. Christianity is a religion. It's unproven. So you can believe in it or you can reject it. More than that is not needed”.
But your a direct result of that the doctrine of the TRINITY was not cemented until the first Nicea Council not saying they made it up or founded it but thats when it was cemented as doctrine."
The Nicea Council is totally irrelevant to me. Before the Roman Church, Jews had similar concepts like the Trinity. The idea of having a trinity is a regular occurrence in religions. The Egyptian religion has one. Hinduism has one too (the Trimurti). The New Covenant mentions the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit and the Roman church has put a label on that and that's it. It's not like they have invented the concept of the Trinity.
The Christianity that I'm teaching has nothing at all to do with Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity or Protestantism. It's totally new, started from scratch and based on studying theology.
@@OrthopraxChristianity Your not teaching christianity your not even sure yourself if christianity is the right religion, like I said the apostles always presented christianity as the only truth not a form of truth Paul even goes as far to say if the concept of the resurction was false the whole Christian falls apart, and with that understanding he was still christian which proves he was 100% sure JESUS was who he said he was. "The Bible never attacks other religions (only the corruption in those religions)." Revelation 21:8 " But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” "sorcerers" and "Idolaters" theres alot of pagan religions who use sorcerey as the bible decribes it in ther religion same with Idolaters those can be Buddhism and Hinduism. deuteronomy 18:9 "“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. so its obvious the bible presents herself as the only truth if that was not true why would moses be so mad when the isarlties were worshiping the golden calf. "The Old Covenant is based on the Canaanite religion." what lmao after all of the bible warnings of not adopting religions and practices of forgein countrys you think it was imapcted by a forgein religion, and what canaanite religion as much as I know alot of the canaanites worshiped mulitiple gods. "There is just no way a complicated religion like Christianity can be founded out of the blue." this proves to me you dont really belive in the christiain GOD because if you were you wouldve have been satasfied with the biblical answer of GOD gave moses the 10 commandments and thats when it started. the "the Trimurti" is not in any way related to the Trinity the trimurti are 3 individual gods with different ensces and wills one creates another protoctes and onther destroys this is not the TRINITY the trinity is 1 GOD but in different manifistaions they have the same Will and are one the SPIRIT proceedes from the FATHER and the SON as the word of the Father procceds from the Father also, and the old testmeant did not diffrinate the TRINITY indivuialy like for example the bible says Jacob wrestled with GOD but alot of scholors interpret that as JESUS in flesh in the old testament same when moses was described as talking with GOD thats understood as JESUS leaving his glory to talk with moses, the point is the TRINITY is 1 GOD and no religions clamed this like christianity does and theres no evidence of Judaism adopting any cannanite religion when the bible itslef is so hard press about them not doing that.
@@mnzdeep4258 "Your not teaching christianity your not even sure yourself if christianity is the right religion,"
I haven't studied them all. The ones that I have studied and consider to be true are Christianity and Hinduism.
"like I said the apostles always presented christianity as the only truth not a form of truth Paul even goes as far to say if the concept of the resurction was false the whole Christian falls apart, and with that understanding he was still christian which proves he was 100% sure JESUS was who he said he was."
I agree with Apostle Paul.
'"The Bible never attacks other religions (only the corruption in those religions)." Revelation 21:8 " But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” "sorcerers" and "Idolaters" theres alot of pagan religions who use sorcerey as the bible decribes it in ther religion same with Idolaters those can be Buddhism and Hinduism.'
I'm openly against occultism. That's one of my core teachings.
Buddhists and Hindus don't worship idiols. There are who Hindus who use idols but they don't worship them.
"deuteronomy 18:9 "“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. so its obvious the bible presents herself as the only truth..."
That happened when Pagans became corrupt. The Egyptians, for example, practiced occultism. That's a good example of an abominable practice of a nation. That's all that verse is saying, not that the Bible is the "only truth".
"...if that was not true why would moses be so mad when the isarlties were worshiping the golden calf."
"The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent," - Acts 17:30. God was teaching the Israelites a new religion. Their old one (where calf worship is normal) had to go and make room for the new one, which doesn't include idol worshiping.
'"The Old Covenant is based on the Canaanite religion." what lmao after all of the bible warnings of not adopting religions and practices of forgein countrys you think it was imapcted by a forgein religion, and what canaanite religion as much as I know alot of the canaanites worshiped mulitiple gods.'
They had to start somewhere. The Canaanite religion was indeed not organized. Worship of El and Yahweh preceeds Judaism. They were first worshipped in the Levant. It's therefore not a foreign religion. El even had a wife, Asherah. Judaism didn't start from stratch.
'"There is just no way a complicated religion like Christianity can be founded out of the blue." this proves to me you dont really belive in the christiain GOD because if you were you wouldve have been satasfied with the biblical answer of GOD gave moses the 10 commandments and thats when it started.'
I don't understand what you are talking about here. I'm totally alright with the 10 Commandments.
'the "the Trimurti" is not in any way related to the Trinity the trimurti are 3 individual gods with different ensces and wills one creates another protoctes and onther destroys this is not the TRINITY the trinity is 1 GOD but in different manifistaions they have the same Will and are one the SPIRIT proceedes from the FATHER and the SON as the word of the Father procceds from the Father also,'
I have never said that the Hindu Trinity is the same as the Christian Trinity. The Hindu Trinity is also one God. Hinduism is monotheism. The Hindu Trinity represent different forms of God, hence the word "trimurti". "Tri" is three and "murti" means "form".
"... and theres no evidence of Judaism adopting any cannanite religion when the bible itslef is so hard press about them not doing that."
So what are then El and Yahweh doing in the Canaanite pantheon?
@@OrthopraxChristianity Yahweh was not in the canaanite pantheon this is a debunked theory it starts with the notion or philiophy that man created GOD in their image expect for the exact opposite. the egyptiaon doccuments report the name JWH, not Yahweh similiar spelling dose not mean same GOD YAHWEH probbaly just means "I am" and alot of sechular scolars who do claim such a thing atrubiute that as when the isarlties 40 years in the desert they would have been influenced by nations in the surrounding areas such as the Edomites, descendants of Esau, and the Canaanites. and atruibte the theology of those gods to the GOD they claim to follow not that YAHWEH evolved before juadism to modern day Juadsism since the creation of the religion (in the way you indicate it) , similiar spelling does not indicate same GOD at all.
@@mnzdeep4258 "Yahweh was not in the canaanite pantheon this is a debunked theory it starts with the notion or philiophy that man created GOD in their image expect for the exact opposite." What a weird statement 🤔. Why would that notion/philosophy even be relevant when discussing the Canaanite pantheon?
Yahweh being in the Canaanite pantheon is not a theory at all. You can read about it in encyclopedias. While you are at it, look up El as well. He also appears in the Canaanite pantheon.
"the egyptiaon doccuments report the name JWH, not Yahweh similiar spelling dose not mean same GOD YAHWEH probbaly just means "I am" and alot of sechular scolars who do claim such a thing atrubiute that as when the isarlties 40 years in the desert they would have been influenced by nations in the surrounding areas such as the Edomites, descendants of Esau, and the Canaanites."
Your argument is basically that the tetragrammaton YHWH doesn't mean "Yahweh" when it's used in the Canaanite religion but it's "Yahweh" when it's used in the Old Covenant? In Hebrew, you don't write vowels down. You have to remember the vowels, but the vowels in case of YHWH were not remembered. That's all.
You have very "mystical" advertisements from RUclips during your videos... like magical weight loss or magical stones... those are not random, they just represent what your contingent is interested in apart from "mystical Christianity"
Interesting. I oppose magic. Magic and mysticism are not the same. I don't like that RUclips is confusing these two.
“But there’s no evidence for that.”
Ok, if we follow your logic, is there evidence about Biblical stories then? Just because you don’t trust the tradition of the Church doesn’t mean that there is no evidence. What do you want, scientific evidence that shows that the Apostles founded churches in Georgia or that the Church fathers knew the Apostles? They were ordained by the Apostles and then they ordained other bishops. That’s what’s called apostolic succession, how can you prove that the Orthodox Church doesn’t have it? Plus, you explained the theology of the Church in quite a wrong way.
"Ok, if we follow your logic, is there evidence about Biblical stories then?"
At the beginning of this video, I say, "The error that I most often came across is their believe in what they believe to be correct. That’s orthodoxy. It’s the inability to separate beliefs and facts from each other. They are so obsessed with believing in the truth, that they don’t see the contradiction in that. You don’t need to believe in the truth. Claims require you to believe in them. A claim might be true, but you don’t know that until the claim has been proven to be true. Then it stops being a claim. When a religion is proven, it stops being a religion."
I acknowledge that Christianity is not proven. I don't act like it's proven. That's what the orthodox do.
"Just because you don’t trust the tradition of the Church doesn’t mean that there is no evidence."
If there was evidence, it wouldn't be a belief. It's a Catholic/Orthodox belief but Catholics and Orthodox Christians think it's a fact.
"What do you want, scientific evidence that shows that the Apostles founded churches in Georgia or that the Church fathers knew the Apostles? They were ordained by the Apostles and then they ordained other bishops."
You keep on proving my point about orthodoxy. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Apostles founded Catholic/Orthodox churches. They founded churches, we know that from history, but they were not Catholic/Orthodox churches. Those churches were converted later on to Catholic/Orthodox churches.
"That’s what’s called apostolic succession, how can you prove that the Orthodox Church doesn’t have it?"
I'm not making the claim, so the prove of burden is not on me.
"Plus, you explained the theology of the Church in quite a wrong way."
Feel free to point out what I got wrong.
Nah bro if you want REAL authentic christianity, look towards oriental orthodox. Anabaptist sects and eastern orthodox I'll put second place
Thanks for the invitation but I have already taken a look at Oriental Orthodox Christianity, i.e.: ruclips.net/user/shortsMYczTQkchcg I'm an anabaptist, BTW.
Okay, in a calm demeanor I will ask some fair questions. Are you an authority on ancient manuscripts? How is that you have missed the fact that the church fathers as early as Iraneaus wrote the Book on heretical teachings? He laid out what was and what was NOT a church practice. Since there are no other surviving criticisms of this document saying it was not really what the Church taught and Iraneaus was 'off his rockers', wouldn't it then, be safe to assume he was correct? This would mean that folks such as even ourselves today cannot claim what IS a church practice just because we think it 'makes sense. ' who are you? What church do you attend and who founded it?
"Are you an authority on ancient manuscripts?"
I'm not.
"How is that you have missed the fact that the church fathers as early as Iraneaus wrote the Book on heretical teachings?"
I don't care what the Church Fathers have written. They are not part of my religion. There is no evidence for the apostolic succession. I'm a student of theology. I'm primarily concerned with scriptural theology and not with denominational theology. Unfortunately, the Church has brainwashed people into believing that there is no difference between these two. They position themselves as the "original church" and in doing so, they claim a monopoly on Christianity, which is exactly what the Pharisees did with Judaism. They fought against Jesus because of that. You might have asked Him, "How is that you have missed the fact that the Pharisees as early as first Temple taught the Oral Law?"
"He laid out what was and what was NOT a church practice."
I don't know what he did but sure, I believe you. He laid out what was heresy in the Church. Great. That has nothing to do with me, though.
"Since there are no other surviving criticisms of this document saying it was not really what the Church taught and Iraneaus was 'off his rockers', wouldn't it then, be safe to assume he was correct?"
Perhaps. I don't know because Irenaeus is not in the Bible and I have no reason to care about him or his work.
"This would mean that folks such as even ourselves today cannot claim what IS a church practice just because we think it 'makes sense."
I don't claim what a church practice is. The word "church" doesn't even appear in the Bible. It's a made up word. The Bible talks about "ekklesia" instead, which means "community" or "congregation".
"' who are you?"
Manuel Miloslavia. A spiritual teacher.
"What church do you attend and who founded it?"
I'm establishing Orthoprax Christianity, a new Christian denomination. I'm seeing Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism failing left and right, especially in the West (and East Europe). They have have had no good influence in my life, only negative influence. So I want to do something about it.
you are attacked by demons.
Thanks for making these videos.
I know there is truth / God but don't think i connect to him via any denominational man made religions. I feel connected to God when I'm in nature not when I'm in a church or Liturgy
Christianity is a congregational religion...it even says to meet with other Christians in scripture.
Orthodoxy is not man made and it is pre denominational.
The Orthodox church has direct link to the Apostles of Jesus. In order to receive communion with Christ (the Holy Eucharist) we must be in the church and of the church.
Do not listen to this deceiver and liar who is spreading poison. His is a man made heretical religion which tries to pull people away from the right path
when you only seek feelings, you open up yourself to demons
I'm that way, too. No temple but the Earth!
@@prayunceasingly2029 Who said? They said? Men said?... Religion, revelation and scripture has nothing to do with the creator or creation.
part4
‘No you don't. You believe in creationism. Have you witnessed God creating humans?”.
That's a dumb question have you seen Christopher Colombus find America (doesn't matter if you believe he was the one that found America or not) no but you still know America's existence have you seen george washington being elected a president no but you still know he was the first president of the united states
“that doesn't make my statement false. I didn't mention Ethiopia because Ethiopia was not relevant to the point that I was trying to make. The West didn't care about Ethiopia. In fact, neither did the rest of the world, aside from Ethiopia, Coptics and who else? Wherever you go in the world, when you come across Christianity, it's likely connected to the Catholic Church. The Roman Empire embraced Christianity. Then the East-West Schism happened and the Orthodox Church was born, which is now dominant in Eastern Europe. Then the Reformation happened, which was a rebellion against the Catholic Church. It resulted in int Protestantism, which is now dominant in many parts of the West. Thanks to colonialism, Catholicism is now dominant in South America, Mexico, the Philippines, etc. The Ethiopian Church didn't have much of an impact on the world and that's fine”
But you made it look like the whole faith was corrupted by the roman empire that's why I brought up Ethiopia and the oriental orthodox family because most of them are not even in Europe I brought that up to prove to you the whole faith didn't get “corrupted” (which again there is no evidence for this) by the Romans or roman paganism because that would be historical ignorance and difference between the catholic church and the orthodox and oriental orthodox are merely doctrinal which couldn't be impacted by any form of pagan distortion or corruption which again brings me to the question if the early Christian church was somehow corrupted by the Romans how are the churches outside Europe and outside roman jurisdiction get impacted also.
"That's a dumb question have you seen Christopher Colombus find America (doesn't matter if you believe he was the one that found America or not) no but you still know America's existence have you seen george washington being elected a president no but you still know he was the first president of the united states"
There is historical evidence for Christopher Columbus and George Washington.
"But you made it look like the whole faith was corrupted by the roman empire that's why I brought up Ethiopia and the oriental orthodox family because most of them are not even in Europe I brought that up to prove to you the whole faith didn't get “corrupted” (which again there is no evidence for this) by the Romans or roman paganism because that would be historical ignorance and difference between the catholic church and the orthodox and oriental orthodox are merely doctrinal which couldn't be impacted by any form of pagan distortion or corruption which again brings me to the question if the early Christian church was somehow corrupted by the Romans how are the churches outside Europe and outside roman jurisdiction get impacted also."
I was talking specifically about Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism. Oriental Orthodox Christianity was not even on my mind. I'm a Westerner (with ties to Eastern Europe). I speak to Westerners in my videos. I don't know if the Ethiopian Church has inherited anything from Paganism. I'm pretty sure that you will find in China, South Korea or Japan some weird form of Christianity that is free from Paganism and Roman influences. I can't know everything. So I speak in general terms to Westerners in my videos.
The comments have more value than the video/podcast itself:)
part 2
"Because it's the same religion?”
that dose not even make sense the only thing that different communions of orthodox will have in common is dogma and doctrine not tradition so “Because it's the same religion” really dose not make sense
“That is 100% correct. I don't need their support. I don't believe in the apostolic succession”.
You dont need to believe in apostolic succession, for example, a lot of protestant reformers brought the apostolic fathers in their writings a lot the apostolic fathers teach dogmas there were there in the early church and they were also closer to the apostolic time than we are for example the apostle Paul had a disciple Timothy he wrote a letter to him in one of his Pauline epistles and Timothy would be considered as an apostolic father and you can take his words in face value because he was taught directly by Paul himself and there's also disciplines of Timothy and the Disciples of the other apostles and their disciples they are all considered as the early fathers and some of those fathers are from as early as the 2nd century or 3rd century making them closer to the apostles and believe it or not the religion you're in right now was built by those fathers.
“See, this is the problem with orthodox people: confusing beliefs for facts. You believe in apostolic succession. It's a belief. There is no evidence to support it. It's fine if you believe it”
Lack I just said the lack of evidence dose does not make the fact untrue for example Leucippus of Miletus born in the 5th century Bce first brought the Idea of atomic philosophy but he didn't have any way of proving that didn't mean he was wrong seen more then 2 thousand years later his philosophy was proven right by a chemist.
A belief can be true, but since it's unproven, it can't be more than the truth.
Emmanuel Swedenborg told the truth
Can you explain that?
@@OrthopraxChristianity no Christian dénomination is true. Swedenborg has the only theology that makes sense. Check out the theology section of his Wikipedia page. And the page about The new church (swedenborgianism).
All his books are free to download on the Swedenborg foundation website. In Secrets of heaven he explains the books of Genesis and exodus and in true christianity he explains the true theology.
I still think mystical orthodoxy makes sense but it’s incomplete and get some things wrong.
"no Christian dénomination is true. Swedenborg has the only theology that makes sense."
He founded a Christian denomination.
"Check out the theology section of his Wikipedia page. And the page about The new church (swedenborgianism)."
I just did, even though I know about Emmanuel Swedenborg.
"All his books are free to download on the Swedenborg foundation website. In Secrets of heaven he explains the books of Genesis and exodus and in true christianity he explains the true theology."
I think that he's cool.
@@OrthopraxChristianity He did not found a christian denomination. His followers did after he died. And he always said that lives of love and truth regardless of the religion gets people to heaven.
@@OrthopraxChristianity And isn't Othoprax christianity a new denomination ? To be focused that much on theology is not good. Just find a church with people trying to be good and a wise priest even if you don't agree with everything. The purpose of religion is to get people together to celebrate God.
You said some valid things but also got some things wrong like when you said the same church didn’t allow anyone to read the Bible. Bibles were very expensive back in the day so course not many people were able to read it. When you said it took the reformation to happen before people could read the Bible is because of the development of the printing press. Which made it easier to make bibles but still costly. Also you talk about evidence but gave none when you said that the church fathers have no direct connection to the disciples of Jesus. Idk man you give out statements but provide no evidence. I’m not even catholic or orthodox btw.
"You said some valid things but also got some things wrong like when you said the same church didn’t allow anyone to read the Bible. Bibles were very expensive back in the day so course not many people were able to read it."
That doesn't invalidate what I have said. The Church didn't allow people to read it.
"When you said it took the reformation to happen before people could read the Bible is because of the development of the printing press. Which made it easier to make bibles but still costly."
That also doesn't invalidate what I have said. The printing revolution happened before the Reformation but it was the Reformation to began to make the Bible freely available for reading by ordinary people.
"Also you talk about evidence but gave none when you said that the church fathers have no direct connection to the disciples of Jesus."
They made the claim of the apostolic succession, not me. The burden of evidence is on them, not me.
Church fathers are the successors of the apistles. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna for example are from st John apostle. clement I was after Peter... to say Church Fathers doesn't have any direction or continuity with the apostles is a huge fat lie
I would like to see the (historical) evidence.
Find Christ you seem to be trying to establish your own denomination based on your own feelings you don’t seem to be looking for truth you made a short video about Orthodox Church icons and how they made you feel sad and depressed that’s your own experience in that video you cried about what it did to you how can you judge something on one perspective
You haven’t replied to any argument that I have made. Instead, you have based your entire post on alledging that I have acted on my feelings. At the end, you ask me how I can judge something on one perspective. Really? I’m amazed at the behavior of Orthodox Christians. I’m impressed by the Orthodox Church. They have mastered brainwashing the masses at a spectacular level 😮😱😳.