Відео

This is a disgrace, you people are disgraceful should be ashamed of yourselves and repent of your slander and envy And self righteousness Avoid Doreen virtue.

Wow the weird bitterness in this discussion. The minute you try calling him a gnostic you were exposed, how dishonest What a disgrace, very poor representation of Heiser and his beliefs . Also avoid Doreen virtue

I hold that the ONLY aspect of the Divine nature we will share in or partake in is his LOVE and nothing else. we are NOT GODS and NEVER WILL BE. some attributes of God we share due to being in His image, but some we do NOT share, for they are what make him God, and HIM ALONE, namely all the infinite attributes' Clearly Heiser is worse than i thought. He seems., equally clearly, to have been infatuated with an idea and ran with it too far. FAR too far he should have stuck to his Sumerian field of expertise for i first heard of him in his refutation of Zechariah Sitchin on the Annunaki

I too had heard that the plural of Majesty was not used in ancient Hebrew times, so which is it?? if one expert says it was used and another says no how are we to know which is correct? clearly the experts cannot appeal to their own authority if they contradict each other.

I reject Heiser. He made a complete fool of himself with his view of Psalm 82. the assembly of gods the Lord was walking among was HUMAN JUDGES and the whole psalm merely a plea for righteousness among them.. BUT i find the idea that the nephilim were merely the result of mixed marriages between godly and ungodly persons ridiculous. why should such produce prodigies known as men of renown. IMO they were demonic offspring bred on ungodly women and could be nothing else. BUT too many of those who also agree with this push this FAR TOO FAR. i found this video ok till the experts Ms Virtue were speaking to introduced errors of their own

It has been my understanding that there is no such thing as a "plural of majesty" in Hebrew, that that did not exist until Western European usage for kings or queens, can someone provide examples of Hebrew usage from the time, thnx.

People have to be so stu- pid to ignore the demonic dogmas of Rome and the East. I'm tired of the lies by the ignorant and liars on UA-cam preaching that the differences are not that big of a deal.

Both Rome and the East have gone the way of paganism and are not Christians, they both deny the true Gospel of Grace. Anathema and a pox on them both for their blasphemies and heresies.

It should be the so-called "one true church".

Both Rome and the East have declared themselves apostates by their denial of the Gospel of Grace. Not only are they condemned by Scripture as pagan goddess worshipers but they have themselves condemned anyone not under their tyrannical authority. All the talk about unity amongst the so-called "apostolic faiths" by liars and the ignorant online is such a lie. Flee to Christ kids!

I wonder if not hearing the gospel is part of the Coptic, it is part of our liturgy, each eeek.

Thank you for your message, Lord.

Jonathan (is not our father) and he could learn a lot about humility and truth from Sam.

I recommend you study ancient church history. 99% Protestants know nothing about it. I was one of them. They usually have a fuzzy idea that the church immediately went into apostasy right after the apostles died, and so the Church that was supposed to never fail even being placed at the gates of hell, did-for 1500+ years and yet the Bible was still canonized by the bishops of a fallen church? Go to original documents such 4:25 as the Didache, read the writings of the earliest apostolic bishops like polycarp. You’ll learn more about the apostolic teachings on communion. You’ll learn that the 300+ bishops who canonized the Bible were Orthodox, not Protestant. How can Protestants trust that the holy spirit worked through these men who by the standards of modern Protestants are often viewed as idolaters? How is it that these same men expounded at length on the Trinity, the nature of Christ, baptism, and more? It starts to occur to you that the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky into the hands of reformed or modern Christians. No doubt, the early reformers had their hands full with Roman Catholic heresies and corruption, but there existed without pause, the Orthodox Church and without distortions such as occurred in RCC.

You have it all wrong

Bad understanding. Don't waste your time and listen to this man.

You realize you quote songs about battles won when Mary appeared in combat against Muslims and this is not about sin? Ask an Orthodox not a protestant.

Mary is venerated, not worshipped. Do you have any idea what "worship" actually means to Orthodox.

Jay Dyer. protestantism began in 1500s, Orthodoxy began with Jesus Christ. Against the church the gates of hell will not prevail. If that verse isnt true, Christianity is a fraud.

How do you discern which ideas from the early Church fathers to retain, and which ones to ignore? It sounds like from Constantine onwards you would say it's invalid. Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD, the Nicene creed was in 325 AD, and (just looked it up) it seems that the books of the bible that were canon were decided on in 397 AD. Would you keep all these, but remove icons? If the Church had become so rotten after Constantine's conversion and the Roman empire becoming Christian, why would one take the Nicene creed's ideas as being legitimate (Jesus being God the Son and his relationship to God the Father)? Would you say Arianism might be correct? Weren't Roman emperors viewed as being son of god? Or the books of the bible - how are you deciding which books are canon? There were disputes about which books are or aren't canon, and the 397 Council of Carthage played a crucial part. Seems that you're arbitrarily accepting some things, and disregarding other things from the early Christians.

Note one thing - all churches who have Apostolic origins use icons... only Protestants who do NOT have Apostolic origins are Iconoclastic heretics, including Muslims who also do not have Apostolic origins and Jews alike. Think about it.

I'm a Syriac Orthodox considering Eastern Orthodoxy so I'd have known a lot above Orthodoxy. I knew there would be a limitation with a Non-Chalcedonian apostate to Protestantism as the video would equate the two groups rather than an Eastern Orthodox apostate to Protestantism. As a Syriac Orthodox, whether or not I knew about Dioscorus, Flavian, Pulcheria, Euphemia, Cyril etc, I still heard the gospel, I knew the meaning of the cross and the sacrifice, I read the Bible, entirely contradicting his experience. While knowing the Chalcedonian schism did affect my faith so much I could have become Protestant, my own Pope, my own Church, I'd have felt insecure building my own interpretation that could violate patristic, spiritual teachings to a more simple, and human manner. But that's just what it is at the end of the day, experience. Entering the video on Doreen's channel, I sensed this video would be clearly biased from Doreen's lack of awareness, if Doreen wanted to learn about Orthodoxy why did she take it from someone who would have obviously have suited her Protestant biases, of course, if she got Fr Peter Heers or Jay Dyer, despite the bias they'd have, she could have learnt about Orthodoxy from an educational perspective from an experienced Orthodox Christian who knew their faith with great sufficiency rather than a way that would have made her go against Orthodoxy from an apostate. She didn't need to go against Orthodoxy, the video itself could have been about learning Orthodoxy rather than poking it. What's even more worse is that if she had a negative impression of Orthodoxy, and felt very against it, why couldn't she have gotten Kyle, or Fr Josiah, or Jay and debated. So many refutations.

What abominations, what blasphemies! What paganism!!! 🤢🤮 Disgusting!

This guy is FULL OF B U L L S H I T...don't step in it.

We do not Separate The. CHURCH INTO PIECES. Scripture EXISTS within The Church, for The Church. So the Church KNOWS. The Scripture is a lived thing within The Church. It isn't something you read only. It isn't something you get graded on. It isn't something you are called to recite without understanding. Holy Scriptures are like the engine of a car. ....sure. you can put a nice engine in your garage. But. It won't take you anywhere without the rest of it.

Orthodox Christians do not Worship Mary. This SFB just DOES NOT understand what ACTUAL Worship IS. MARY was WHO GOD CHOSE to ask to be the Ark of The Incarnate Word. She did NOT HAVE to say yes. But she did. You were not chosen, or clean enough or good enough to even be asked. No one was. She is The Mother of ALL of the Living. That is what it is to understand Mary in the context of The BODY OF JESUS. SO YES, she gets respect and veneration above all other who are of the Living within the Body of Jesus.

Exactly 1 MINUTE 15 SECONDS into this video and this guy IS ALREADY full of crap. #1 WHY do we Worship on Sunday? ??? BECAUSE it. Is The Apostles teaching. And this is CONTRARY to the 4th commandment. #2 Why do we HAVE Images of Jesus??? BECAUSE IT IS APOSTOLIC TEACHING ...do NOT deny the Incarnation of The Word and still claim you are Christians. The 2nd commandmet is about Idols and Praxis that Israel would have to DEAL with for the next 1000 years. Yet, if one READS Duteronomy and Numbers, one realises the message. Icons of The Truth IMAGES of THE TRUTH are STILL THE TRUTH!

Uuuuuuummmmmmmmm?????? Wrong take. Lol. Peace. God Bless.

"the words of the prayer are fine" 2 seconds later "they're empty". with all love id suggest reading read st. Gregory palamas "The Triads In Defense of Those Who Practice Sacred Quietude" translated by Fr. Peter A. Chamberas, this completely rebuttals everything from your western mindset. one of St Gregory's greatest critique of how the west views the Theology, Scripture, Tradition and philosophy is that it eventually leads to mass atheism, which is exactly what happened in the west. God way does lead to atheism, yours does, historically. dont take this as an attack on you, take this as a moment to actually understand a worldview that you're talking about.

I pray both gentlemen in this video may educate themselves properly in Church history tradition , Apostolic succession and tradition . Pardon my ignorance, it does not come across as though you have an educated understanding of Orthodoxy . Perhaps visit an Orthodox Church near yourselves and humbly ask the priest there if he is willing and able to answer some of your questions. This video for me personally comes across as a way of an attack on Orthodoxy.

If the Devil can pervert the Bible, surely he can ruin mysticism. The Charismatic Movement is of the Devil, but what about the Orthodox Church, surely, the Devil used an Orthodox belief and twisted a sect of Protestantism, so when ex-Charismatics search Orthodoxy, they'll be reminded by the abuse the Charismatics did tarnishing the Orthodox Church. It's sad that bible quotes end up being read in simplicity, and rationality, and in human knowledge. When we pray we should not just say it without meaning it in the heart, nor should we ask for materialism (something that was sadly used to slander the Orthodox Church). St. Athanasius, sorry can't mention him, but he said that the Arian prayers are vain for their heresy. While Prots reject Sirach, there is a similar quote but since the Orthodox Church use the book, there is a quote that says that we shouldn't say sins without meaning it. Look at the Old Testament, elaborate prayers said to a false God, self-harm is done so that the false God can hear them but while Saint Anthony deprived himself of sleep, as a monastic, his refusal of sleep would have shown self-control, like a fast, unlike Baalists, St Anthony was not praying to a false God but a one, true God. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus said the same prayer three times. Becoming sinless is a problem? But the Methodists believe in a path of sanctification where you reach a point when you stop sinning.

I Have No Discourse nor Dialogue With The Heretical and Hetrodox Teachings of The Apostate Protestant Reformation. ☦️🕊🕯🔥🙏☦️⛪️‼️

Pro Tip: never let a protestant teach you Orthodox dogma or theology the only guarantee is they will get it wrong either intentionally or unintentionally but wrong nonetheless. Just stay in your lane and talk about what you know.

Proverbs 6:19

A false dilemma. No one is disputing the authority of Scripture as God-breathed. But what the Scripture says is understood in the context of Holy Tradition, which simply means original Christianity, rather than a 15th century invention.

The Bergoglio "Catholic Church" is making moves to be separated from Biblical teachings, Tradition maintained over 2,000 years and true Councils, excluding Vatican II, which have guided the Church over the centuries. Bergoglio is a loose cannon!

Thank you sir for solidifying why I went from being a Protestant to now Eastern Orthodox. The true path highlights the extreme difficulty of facing myself and my sins

Heres some of the dumb things i heard from this man. "There's been studies done where if you ask Eastern orthodox people what is the gospel you will get various different answers because it's not very clear Whereas if you ask a protestant it's very clear, trust in Jesus and soforth" "Sola ecclesia" "Church [that wrote an infallible bible] is not infallible" "Hymns are considered infallible" "The message derived from the bible is not there in the orthodox church" We literally wrote the Bible Did Jesus leave a Bible at pentacost? Or did he leave a Church? You dont even have the right canon of scripture dude, Jesus knew the septuagint you have no clue whats going on. You dont even have proper christology because all your theology is centered on sotireology and escatology 😂😂😂

2:44 _When they (clergy?) speak in "official capacity," that's the same level as Scripture (i.e. infallible)_ The statement above is totally incorrect, in fact, it's a complete misunderstanding of the Orthodox teaching. Speaking in "official capacity" of anyone from Orthodox clergy or non-clergy, is never a guarantee of the correctness of teaching, and much less of any sort of infallibility (this is in sharp contrast with Roman Catholics, where Pope does claim such infallibility ex cathedra). Even if that particular teaching is voiced by an Orthodox Patriarch himself ex cathedra, or even by a whole council of ALL Orthodox Patriarchs together, and even if that council claims itself to be "Oecumenical"! Why? because that could have been a "robber council," and if so, all Orthodox Christians are in no way bound by it. Practically, that means, that beyond the 7 Oecumenical councils, which indeed are accepted as the voice of the Holy Spirit, and the decisions of which could be, with some stipulations, be deemed "infallible", no contemporary person or ecclesiastical body, or even the assembly of such bodies, can claim infallibility. Thus, when the Orthodox talk about infallibility of the Church, they don't mean any particular church organization, Orthodox or not. They really mean the Church as defined by Saint Basil the Great as _the spiritual unity of all creatures who are in communion with God, those who lived before us, those who still live now, those who will live after us, and those who are never to live in human form (like Angels)._ *This is the ultimate and the only infallible authority in the Orthodoxy.* If that authority has accepted a particular teaching or tradition, it is considered "Orthodox" or correct, if it has rejected it, maybe even hundreds of year after its initial introduction, it is rejected and considered unorthodox. *In short, the reality is much more complex and this question is completely misrepresented in this video.*

☦☦☦

The problem that many Protestants have is that their arguments are circular and they don’t realize it. They claim Sola Scriptura but they cannot identify an authority that can define which interpretation is actually the correct interpretation. This is what leads to the constant splitting of the church. They fail to realize that the Church is actually the body of Christ and is Holy. The ancient church defined doctrine by holding ecumenical councils and did not tacitly accept any single person’s teaching unless it was affirmed as genuine by the Church as the whole body. This is largely gone from modern western Christianity and as a result heresy runs rampant. May God have mercy on us and judge our intentions and not our doctrine.

I just had to comment based on the title alone lol saying Orthodox vs Biblical teachings is like saying The Celtics vs The Celtics 😂 Orthodoxy is Biblical teachings and The Bible is part of the Church they are an inseparable body along with the people.

Amazing preaching, God bless you

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic faith with his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary being the 1st Catholic convert. Christ made Saint Peter the 1st pope, thus establishing apostolic procession, Catholics are the original Bible Christians. If it weren't for Catholic Crusaders and Catholic knights the western world would be on it's collective knees 5 times a day, facing mecca and praying to allah the devil. The documented appearances and miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Lourdes, France, at Fatima, Portugal and at Garabandal, Spain are proof positive that true Christendom is the Catholic faith. The world needs to start praying the Rosary and heed the Virgin Mary's warnings especially from 10/13/1917 with 50,000+ witnesses and the miracle of the sun, with before and after photos.

Everything the church says focuses on, leads to, and glorifies Christ. As the bride of Christ, whom Christ himself established, and against whom the gates of hades will never prevail, the church is truly the ark of salvation. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

The church is good for a “launch pad” to get the Word out and around the world, however people subconsciously have turn the “church” into an idol itself. Catholics are like “Pharisees of Christendom”. Subconsciously speaking, they act like the church was around before God was. No material church or material rites, traditions or ceremonies come close to GODs throne. The Tabernacle and The Temple of the Lord were PHYSICALLY lit 🔥 by the Lords glory. His stamped approval. I have yet to see something similar to happen to a church from ANY denomination. It’s not church that saves people, it’s Jesus that saves, God that proves. When you pass away most likely your pastor/priest won’t be standing next to you before God Almighty. So what’s the point of church today? Answer: Fellowship with others that are believers and followers of Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit, because it’s extremely difficult to fellowship with the world that is against GOD.

Everyone debating which church is the original. They act as if the church came before the Word. They subconsciously act is if the church is more important than the Bible itself. Sola Scriptura.

As a non committed searcher for the truth who is leaning towards the Eastern Orthodox Church after much research I would say that it is incumbent on you if you are to say the Eastern Orthodox Church is teaching and err to point out doctrine that is corrupted. I would agree that if the Eastern Orthodox Church stated that they held the logos but taught error that would be anathema. At that point there would be a case for Protestantism. This video shows no evidence of that. Are you are doing is saying empty orthodox church that states that it does not teach heretical teachings And that is somehow wrong. You could be right they may teach heretical things but you have to prove that. You did not do that in this video.

The bible says the following: The Church is the foundation of truth, the gates of hell shall not overcome it, Christ will not leave us orphans. Do you think that He would allow the entire Church for the first 1500 years to fall into error? That He would lie about giving us THE Church and instead teach us through the mouths of many fallible individuals? Of course not. As for the point about giving a definition of what the gospel is; there are 1000s of different protestantisms, only one holy orthodoxy. What, in your worldview, is the basis for your knowledge thst your interpretation of what scripture means and what the Church is, is correct, despite being radicaly different to anything before Luther? Without any eclessiastical authority, how can anyone discern one iterpretation of scripture from the other? And before you say "just dollow what it says" first of all: why would there be multiple interpretations if all you had to do was just read it. And secondly: Where do we get the canon of scripture from? Did the Bible fall out of the sky? It was authored and compiled by the Church which Christ Himself calls infailible. "O, but the Church is fallaible, because I say so", in that case, how can you trust the canon it has given us? Forgive me if I came across as angry, I'm not. Just trying to get the point across as plainly as possible.

Thank you Pastor Farag for helping us understand the EO a lot better.