@@LuisGonzalez-hs5pe You have Protestant family members, but you are not Protestant? How old are you? Did you skip school one day and get baptized on the sly?
@@liquidh5226 lost on me what you’re saying - I was just commenting on our dystopian world and how reading isn’t valued - maybe there will soon be Obama icons etc :). I’m just a dumb fundamentalist with enough church history knowledge to be dangerous 🦋
@@zionwillsing You should read about the 7th ecumenical council and doing so you wouldn’t be lost on me. Your nickname further suggests that you should also read the famous 8 homilies of Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and chapter 4 of Saint John of Damascus’s On Heresies (part of the Fount of Knowledge collection).
Snek is wrong on Theodulf of Orleans on a number of points: 1. Theodulf was not iconoclastic. The supposedly "iconoclastic" Frankish councils were pretty much all orthodox, and attacked Latria/Latreuo being offered to the icons, when in fact, in the western chuch, veneration/dulia/proskuneis was ALREADY offered to the gospel book, the crucifix, the Eucharist, etc. These are all already "icons" according to St. John of Damascus. (Ref. his three apologies against the iconoclasts). The reason for the controversy surrounding the Frankish councils, Theodulf, and Charlemagne was largely due to the fact that they only had access to a Latin translation of the Acts and Canons of Nicaea II. This Latin translation mistakenly translated "proskuneis" as "latria," hence the concern in these councils over "idolatry." This is why both Protestants and EO read Theodulf and the Frankish councils as being iconoclastic, when in reality, the conciliar fathers along with Theodulf actually thought that the images themselves were being worshipped. Clearly they thought this based on the mistranslation, and thus these men were clearly orthodox. 2. Theodulf of Orleans is not a Saint in the Catholic Church. This is a stupid mistake on the part of Snek. Nowhere could I find any citation of him having been canonized by the Roman Church.
Jay, forgive me for asking a question off the subject but I doubt you will see this or have the time to answer, but I'm a lapsed Orthodox struggling to return. One question that stands in my way of obedience to the church is the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. Why is it so important that she remained a virgin? Not to seem disrespectful, but any person who is specially chosen by God to perform any task of God should be venerated. Mary having done so great a deed as being the Theotokos need not be a perpetual virgin to be worthy of veneration. Why does the church feel she must?
Because it would violate Ezekiel 44:2. And also, remember, the pre-fall human race was supposed to be virgin; and if Christ is the New Adam, and Mary is the New Eve, it would be unthinkable that the woman from whom the new universal human nature is taken had carnal relations with a man. A better question would be, "Why shouldn't Mary have been a perpetual virgin?" And there aren't any good reasons.
Because she was a virgin, that's the most basic reason without going into theology or other complex reasons, she was a virgin her whole life and saying she was not would be incredibly disrespectful to her and Joseph and Jesus. A more complex reason would include the temple and Joesph, when Panagia entered the temple she would of took a vow while in a vow of virginity, then when she had to leave she was 12 years old (due to purity laws) but here parents were dead and she had no one to care for her, so she was given to Joseph a elderly widower who had children in age similar to her the betrothal to Joseph was more of an adoption.
@@isaiah107" Because she was a virgin?" No other reason because that would be "too complex." That is your answer? I hate to sound disrespectful, but that is the most mindless and ignorant reason I've heard so far. How is saying that Mary and her husband Joseph had a normal blessed marriage disrespectful to Her, Joseph or Jesus? Marriage is a sacrament ordained by God. Now regarding this temple story of yours and how mary was given to an elderly already married Joseph who already had children please provide your source for this yarn.
@@paulmelonas7263lying about someone *is* indeed disrespectful, especially if it's the Mother of God you're lying about. So there's that. It's also a heresy, a lie against the Church, Which Christ Himself established. Why would you want to affirm something which isn't true about the one who is above the angels - the holy Theotokos, and about Christ's Body - the Orthodox Church?
As someone forced to attend a "Pentecostal/Prosperity Gospel/Word of faith" type church, let me say that this video is awesome. Keep the good work.
Who is forcing you to attend that kind of church?
@@Benjamin-bq7tc My protestant family members.
@@LuisGonzalez-hs5pe You have Protestant family members, but you are not Protestant? How old are you? Did you skip school one day and get baptized on the sly?
You have to make a clip on the TMM debate😂
Allah's foot is not like any other foot.
Icons were for the illiterate - I guess we will be needing them
Are you Leo Isaurian?
@@liquidh5226 lost on me what you’re saying - I was just commenting on our dystopian world and how reading isn’t valued - maybe there will soon be Obama icons etc :). I’m just a dumb fundamentalist with enough church history knowledge to be dangerous 🦋
@@zionwillsingthere already are. The wokeoids were making icons of fauci during the coof...
@@zionwillsing You should read about the 7th ecumenical council and doing so you wouldn’t be lost on me. Your nickname further suggests that you should also read the famous 8 homilies of Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and chapter 4 of Saint John of Damascus’s On Heresies (part of the Fount of Knowledge collection).
Does Jay have a good video covering his position and views on the Christian mellenium topic? I'd love to see an in depth one.
Look up "Antichrist explainded" by Jay Dyer
@@seraphim95 i think I saw that one but it was very shortly on mellenium? I'll check again
This video showed me that EO and Protestantism and Catholocism are entirely different religions.
Snek is wrong on Theodulf of Orleans on a number of points:
1. Theodulf was not iconoclastic. The supposedly "iconoclastic" Frankish councils were pretty much all orthodox, and attacked Latria/Latreuo being offered to the icons, when in fact, in the western chuch, veneration/dulia/proskuneis was ALREADY offered to the gospel book, the crucifix, the Eucharist, etc. These are all already "icons" according to St. John of Damascus. (Ref. his three apologies against the iconoclasts). The reason for the controversy surrounding the Frankish councils, Theodulf, and Charlemagne was largely due to the fact that they only had access to a Latin translation of the Acts and Canons of Nicaea II. This Latin translation mistakenly translated "proskuneis" as "latria," hence the concern in these councils over "idolatry." This is why both Protestants and EO read Theodulf and the Frankish councils as being iconoclastic, when in reality, the conciliar fathers along with Theodulf actually thought that the images themselves were being worshipped. Clearly they thought this based on the mistranslation, and thus these men were clearly orthodox.
2. Theodulf of Orleans is not a Saint in the Catholic Church. This is a stupid mistake on the part of Snek. Nowhere could I find any citation of him having been canonized by the Roman Church.
Jay, forgive me for asking a question off the subject but I doubt you will see this or have the time to answer, but I'm a lapsed Orthodox struggling to return. One question that stands in my way of obedience to the church is the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. Why is it so important that she remained a virgin? Not to seem disrespectful, but any person who is specially chosen by God to perform any task of God should be venerated. Mary having done so great a deed as being the Theotokos need not be a perpetual virgin to be worthy of veneration. Why does the church feel she must?
Because it would violate Ezekiel 44:2. And also, remember, the pre-fall human race was supposed to be virgin; and if Christ is the New Adam, and Mary is the New Eve, it would be unthinkable that the woman from whom the new universal human nature is taken had carnal relations with a man.
A better question would be, "Why shouldn't Mary have been a perpetual virgin?" And there aren't any good reasons.
Because she was a virgin, that's the most basic reason without going into theology or other complex reasons, she was a virgin her whole life and saying she was not would be incredibly disrespectful to her and Joseph and Jesus.
A more complex reason would include the temple and Joesph, when Panagia entered the temple she would of took a vow while in a vow of virginity, then when she had to leave she was 12 years old (due to purity laws) but here parents were dead and she had no one to care for her, so she was given to Joseph a elderly widower who had children in age similar to her the betrothal to Joseph was more of an adoption.
@@OrthodoxInquiry Can you share some links or suggestions on the "pre-fall human race was supposed to be virgin" part?
@@isaiah107" Because she was a virgin?" No other reason because that would be "too complex." That is your answer? I hate to sound disrespectful, but that is the most mindless and ignorant reason I've heard so far. How is saying that Mary and her husband Joseph had a normal blessed marriage disrespectful to Her, Joseph or Jesus? Marriage is a sacrament ordained by God.
Now regarding this temple story of yours and how mary was given to an elderly already married Joseph who already had children please provide your source for this yarn.
@@paulmelonas7263lying about someone *is* indeed disrespectful, especially if it's the Mother of God you're lying about. So there's that. It's also a heresy, a lie against the Church, Which Christ Himself established.
Why would you want to affirm something which isn't true about the one who is above the angels - the holy Theotokos, and about Christ's Body - the Orthodox Church?
Moses came off the mountain and they were sacraficing aniamls to Baal and didnt establish any of that