It is so funny that the antichrists still use this pathetic lie, especially that Heavenly Father notes further in the chapter that "man has become as one of us, knowing good from evil." Man truly became an agent for themselves once they had the ability to differentiate between good and evil. They were no longer innocent, but accountable. Satan's lie was "you shall not die". We know spiritual death came on quickly, while physical death came later. The scripture in question has nothing to do with eternal life/becoming as our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are (although there are multiple scriptural and early Christian sources that document that truth), but not in that verse. As always, the antichrists prey on the ignorant, uneducated, weak, and lazy among those whom they peddle their deceptions. Also, great breakdown here Halestorm with the scriptures in the chapter.
@cameronreed141121 күн бұрын
"philosophies of men mingled with scripture"
@justaguy32824 күн бұрын
I hate these type of holier than thou channels that do nothing but talk shit about fellow believers who are actually on the field of battle trying to reach the lost
@HaleStorm4924 күн бұрын
@@justaguy328 Your could have learned something useful.
@JD-pr1et24 күн бұрын
Interesting that Frank misses as well (or avoids) that apostles and prophets (and thus continuing revelation and scripture) are to continue in the Lord's Church until everyone comes into a unity of faith.
@HaleStorm4924 күн бұрын
@@JD-pr1et Unless the pastors are overworked* I saw another video where the kid asked Him how to respond to a latter day saint about ______ fill in the blank and he said, "you start by saying - look we are all adults here right?" Then you watch Cliff go on PBD and criticize atheists for not actually listening to anyone they disagree with , not being open to the intellectual arguments, ignoring all the evidence, discounting eye witnesses, etc... I don't know how he keeps a straight face. 😆
@JD-pr1et24 күн бұрын
@HaleStorm49 I don't know how he can keep a straight face either. So far, I haven't ever had someone say we are all adults here before spouting one or more of the old stale antichrist talking points so perhaps that tactic hasn't gained any traction. However, I have found the people that the antichrists dupe do not respond well to scripture and history, at least those who come onto channels and videos about the restored gospel the berate, badger, and harrass.
@WayofYahushua24 күн бұрын
Since Saul didn't write Ephesians, no he didn't say that. Nothing Saul did write is scripture and he sats so himself. Only the Tanakh is scripture.
@HaleStorm4924 күн бұрын
@@WayofYahushua who wrote Ephesians?
@JD-pr1et24 күн бұрын
Gee. Paul states he wrote Ephesians in the 1st verse.
@hectorhernandez21524 күн бұрын
Nope....New Testament is Scripture...You are only expressing your indoctrination.
@WayofYahushua24 күн бұрын
Yahushua never started a new religion. Christianity is an apostate false religion.
@colinreiss7228Ай бұрын
Where are your beliefs in church history? Is it true that there were none saved from the apostles through Joseph smith?
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@colinreiss7228 No I'm not sure where that comes from but it isn't true. The final judgement hasn't occurred yet. We believe in Peter's teaching late in his life that Christ visited and taught the dead (1 Peter 3 & 4) between his death and resurrection. The gospel will be preached to every soul before every knee bows and tongue confesses.
@theoriginalhowardhoАй бұрын
This is just sad
@HaleStorm4915 күн бұрын
It's a long road to Damascus. Frank still has time.
@theoriginalhowardho15 күн бұрын
I'm sorry, I meant this is garbage. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you're doing the Lords' work by making garbage.
@HaleStorm4915 күн бұрын
@@theoriginalhowardho you should be sorry. You can't even make an argument.
@stevenator0281Ай бұрын
I converted to the LDS Church twenty-six years ago. Every day I get more and more confirmation that I did the right thing.
@notthatseriousapologeticsАй бұрын
You are fooled by a fake prophet. Don’t misuse scripture. You follow a FALSE religion. It is only through Christ and Faith in Him that we are saved. Repent, put Joseph Smith 6 ft under where he belongs and follow Jesus.
@notthatseriousapologeticsАй бұрын
9:38 LITERALLY NO EVANGELICALS say you shouldn’t do good works. That’s a straw man argument. We acknowledge that we cannot be SAVED BY WORKS. BIG DIFFERENCE.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
You can be saved without works, you cannot receive eternal life without works. In their limited wisdom gatekeepers conflated them Peter warned that Paul's writings lead the unlearned & unstable to destruction. we see that today in modern sectarianism.
@notthatseriousapologeticsАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 you are HIGHLY MISTAKEN. Peter and Paul preached the same Gospel. You also just contradicted yourself in the same reply too. To be saved means that you have been given eternal life. Eternal life is something that we receive by GRACE. GRACE is a gift we receive through FAITH. You are a heretic. Repent and believe in the Gospel. Stop listening to the teachings of a church that was founded by a man who sought to gain the world. Joseph Smith is a false prophet. “Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:14-16 when Peter said that the untaught distort Paul’s message. He was warning of people like you and Joseph Smith, who distort the scriptures to your own destruction. You fail to understand the scriptures as did Joseph Smith. His prophecies failed just as your faith has. You have misplaced your faith toward a false god of Joseph Smith’s creation. You are following a golden calf. Repent and God will have mercy on you and grant you salvation through his everlasting Grace, continue in these ways and The only planet that you’ll be a seeing for yourself is the lake of fire.
@notthatseriousapologeticsАй бұрын
Mormonism is NOT CHRISTIANITY. it is false. You follow a false prophet if you follow Mormonism. Following Joseph Smith alone makes you a heretic since he was a heretic.
@HaleStorm4915 күн бұрын
Ahh, good to know. Which strip mall street corner church should we join?
@notthatseriousapologetics15 күн бұрын
@@HaleStorm49at least many of those churches acknowledge that Jesus IS God, and that there is Only One God, and the Bible was not corrupted, and Joseph Smith is a liar. Any Church that doesn’t acknowledge the Trinity, that God is one in Nature and Essence and 3 distinct persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, is a false Church. Any one who listens to Moroni is a Moron. Joseph smith is a fraud, and it’s very obvious with only a little bit of testing.
@gomeettupoc50centАй бұрын
Without gatekeeping we end up with all these false Christianity like Mormonism and progressive Christianity and prosperity gospel and JW. This is eternal salvation we are talking about! It is vital to get it right! If it does not align with the Holy Bible it is false! It is your choice to believe or not but you do not have the right to water it down or alter it!!
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
It's been altered and watered down since the 2nd century. The gospel went woke long before the culture did.
@CaptainWaldoeАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 explain
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@CaptainWaldoe sure - since you asked. After the death of the Apostles the churches continued to be affected by leadership voids, doctrinal disputes, cultural influences, etc. If you study Paul's epistles you see that some of the churches (IE Galatians) couldn't go very long without apostolic instruction before they reverted back to pagan traditions and strange doctrines. Fast forward a couple hundred years and those who remained decided they needed a council to determine the core beliefs of Christianity. By this time it was already too late. The nature of God, the Godhead, ordinances, temple worship, the three degrees of heavenly glory (corinthians) baptism for the dead (Corinthians) mode and authority of baptism. All this stuff had been altered, polluted, watered down, etc. Furthermore, those remaining did not have Apostolic jurisdiction to make those decisions. it was being decided by self-appointed leaders and authorities. It spawned a 2000 year ruckus with 50,000 different denominations (ie imitations) The gatekeepers end up unwittingly fighting against the gatemaker...like the Jews did before they murdered Christ. It's the Christians that would cancel Christ today, not the pagans.
@TriarchVisgroupАй бұрын
LOL. No. Nice try,
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
It's far easier to politically red pill someone than spiritually red pill them.
@josephthomasmusicАй бұрын
Bro, you have no clue what you're talking about. When you say that Jesus referred to the Father being separate from him, you ignore so many other passages that put his words into context. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aorSf55-atCgjbM
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@halestorm The research on theosis keeps getting deleted.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
I don't see it in Spam. KZbin is doing it.
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@HaleStorm49 I wonder if we can be on at the same time and pin it so it doesn't get deleted. Nothing offensively stated in the research unless someone just doesn't like the fact that the early Christians taught the doctrine quite plainly.
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 I'll email you that tonight.
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
Looks like YT deleted your comment with your email in that, Could you give that to me again?
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 Right to you.
@Ken-kb5fwАй бұрын
Christianity is not polytheistic. You might want to do a little research beforehand
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@Ken-kb5fw from the guy who can't read? Delicious irony.
@TriarchVisgroupАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 Homeslice, here's right. It isn't. You're making a huge ASS of yourself.
@gomeettupoc50centАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49he’s still correct why result to insults?🤔
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
Someone tried to explain it to him and he replied TL:DR. People who don't read aren't that distinguishable from people who can't read.
@Ken-kb5fwАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 I. I have an explanation from St Clement, St Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, St Thomas Aquinas and others. I don’t need one from some internet rando who thinks he knows better than 2000 years of Church history and dogma
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
Here is the Christian research I found noting the unscriptural nature of the Nicene Trinity. At least the members of Christ's restored Church do not call people who unknowingly believe this man made concept of God "not Christian". It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty. Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 4. The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas. Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 144. there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts. (in the New Testament) nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead. in John there is no trinitarian formula. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 14, 16, 29. These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine. ...(Paul) has no formal trinitarian doctrine and no clearcut realization of a trinitarian problem, but he furnishes much material for the later development of a trinitarian doctrine. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 22-23. There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there....The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 32, 35. The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament. P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 1099. This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the OT a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of later development. J. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch, p. 42. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. R.L. Richard, "Trinity, Holy," in New Catholic Encyclopedia 15 vols., 14:295. There is in them (the Apostolic Fathers), of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 44. The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three coequal persons formally ratified. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 87-88. Where the doctrine (of the Trinity) was elaborated, as e.g. in the writings of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1394. It (subordinationism) is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319. Until Origen, the Apologists understood the Logos (Christ) to have become the Son only after his expression from the Father, contrary to the teaching of Nicaea, and they did not clearly distinguish between the Logos and the Holy Ghost. William G. Rusch, The Trinitatian Controversy, pp. 5-6. everyone must admit the Father is prior to and pre-exists the Son. the existence of the Son depended upon a specific premeditated act by the pre-existing Father. Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5.1.20; 4.3.7. Also see discussion in J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 224-26. to translate (John 4:24) 'God is a Spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 225. (the passage at John 4:24) is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because he gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" (1 John iv 8). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, p. 172. The God of the Hebrew Bible is very different from the supreme God of Plato or Aristotle. The former is an anthropomorphic being capable of anger, joy, and other emotions, who created the world and continues to direct human affairs. The God of the philosophers, however, was a much less human and much more abstract figure, incapable of emotion, and far removed from the daily concerns of humanity. Many Jews tried to combine these two conceptions, or, more precisely, to reinterpret the God of the Bible in the light of the ideas of the philosophers, especially Plato....This approach to scripture was developed even further by Origen, Ambrose, and other fathers of the church. Shaye J.D. Cohen, From Maccabees to the Mishnah, vol. 7 of the Library of Early Christianity, p. 44.
@Ken-kb5fwАй бұрын
TL;DR
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@JD-pr1et you'll have to send me a cloud link sometime. You've always got the receipts.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@Ken-kb5fw too lazy, don't read?
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 What is the best way to do that?
@notthatseriousapologeticsАй бұрын
Babe you read the Bible? Because I have, multiple times. The Trinity is 100% scriptural. It’s found all throughout the Old Testament and it is confirmed in the New Testament. You clearly need some more actual research in the scripture instead of perverting your brain with this nonsense. I’m more than glad to post a video on the SCRIPTURAL nature of the Trinity if you really need me to, because the notion that it’s not biblical is straight up false. Read Isaiah 48. And focus your attention when you get to verses 12-17. “Come Near to Me, listen to this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, From the time that it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent ME and His Spirit.” Isaiah 48:16. Here is Isaiah writing what he heard in the spirit, the speaker here is THE WORD (Jesus) this is known as a christophany, which is when Jesus appears before his incarnation. This verse shows the divinity of each divine figurehead of the Trinity, and proves their distinct natures. Showing that they are not the same person, but at the same time, this speaker, The Holy One of Israel, is identified as THE LORD. “I am the LORD your God” Isaiah 48:17. Jesus is YHVH, The Father is YHVH, and The Spirit is YHVH, but they are 3 distinct persons. And this is far from the only verse that highlights this unity among the 3 persons of God.
@conradvd7262Ай бұрын
"Religious bullying" Yeah that's what channels like this are.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@conradvd7262 this is me being nice. 🤫
@snaphaan5049Ай бұрын
Wow. I'm not a Mormon but what bullying are you even referring to?
@IntoAllTruth.Ай бұрын
"Heaven is going to be a place where we work. and I think that we are going to be able to go from planet to planet, and from one part of the universe to the other, and I think we're going to be able to go as fast as thought. I think we're going to have other worlds to conquer. we're going to have tremendous enterprises that we are going to do on other planets. there are many indications in the Bible about this." Billy Graham on the Tonight Show. Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Sitting on the throne wirh Christ is being a god, just as is being co-heirs with Christ. By the way, Jesus said that the way to know a Christmas is to love one another and to keep His commandments. No mention of the trinity there.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
I'd never heard that quote before. That's interesting. I wish we had more info about the TIERs in the celestial. As I get older I think it's odd they were revealed without any goalposts. At a recent family reunion I was trying to stump the elders (old men) with questions about whether TIER II would feel like a silver medal at the Olympics when you trained your whole life for Gold ;)
@tybaltmarr2158Ай бұрын
8:35 some creedal Christians would try to stone jesus if he said those words today
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
Right? It would be Luke 4 all over again. TOSS HIM DOWN THE HILL!
@truegraveeАй бұрын
6:39 That's not polytheism. If anything monarchy of the Godhead.
@truegraveeАй бұрын
no we're not polytheists. We believe three aspects of one essence. It's derived from multiple verses in both the new and Old testament. But I don't think modern Protestants are equipped to answer this question. That's why I converting to orthodoxy
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
The one essence nonsense comes from Plato, not scripture.
@truegraveeАй бұрын
@@JD-pr1et no it doesn't. We have saints that have writing about as Early as Justin Martyr. That is second century writings.
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@@truegravee You need to actually read Justin and others. They speak of a trinity of 3 beings, not the Platonic, metaphysical construct of Nicea and later.
@truegraveeАй бұрын
@@JD-pr1et I actually have read them. I understand. you want second century writings to use the 4th century language that was developed to fight the Aryan heresy. That's just not how language works. Also I want to make note you completely ignored tradition as if Christianity is solely based on written works. That's not how ancient Judaism worked and it's not how Christianity works.
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@@truegravee Sorry, reading 4th century Platonic language back into earlier writings is exactly the problem. The addition of non-scriptural, pagan concepts into scripture and early Christian history is exactly the problem. Non-apostolic, non-revelatory concepts may be tradition, but they are not Christ ordered. Just apostate additions.
@truegraveeАй бұрын
What's wrong with gatekeeping Christianity? I personally say if you don't believe in the Nicene Creed your not Christian. But I haven't watched the video yet so take that as you will
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
So, believing a non-scriptural, Platonic concept of God that wasn't even invented until the 4th century and further developed over the next 1000 years makes one a Christian, but believing in the three scriptural beings makes one not a Christian? Weird thinking there.
@truegraveeАй бұрын
@@JD-pr1et nothing you said is correct. We know what the early church believed. We have the oral traditions of RC, EO, and OO churches but not just that we have the writings of the early saints. The language might have been developed over time but the beliefs have stayed the same.
@JD-pr1etАй бұрын
@truegravee Well, you haven't read any scholarly works on the invention and development of the Platonic God of Nicea. No. The language did change from New Testament times. Please show us where in scripture there are 3 persons (but not real, individual beings) in one numerical, metaphysical essence in the scriptures. That fits well as the essence of pure mind, made up of simple substance that cannot be divided noted as God by Plato. All that was added to that was the equally unscriptural homoousia (of the same essence) to make the Platonic God, the god of Christianity. Don't feel bad though. I was just as uneducated on the matter when I was a Roman Catholic and Evangelical Christian. A good study of scripture and history turned me away from that man made concept to the real three beings of scripture.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
Gatekeeping is the reason you use that metric to decide who is Christian. Nicea was the doctrinal equivalent of steadying the ark.
@truegraveeАй бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 Christianity is an in group. To be a part of the group you have to believe in a certain set of dogmas. If we define Christianity so loosely that anybody be a Christian. The title becomes meaningless.
@thomassherman61Ай бұрын
Colin Flaherty and Scott Adams are always right .
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
It appears so...
@user-rs4gr9yq4uАй бұрын
Everything after 2020 has just reinforced what Colin has been saying since at least 2011.
@robertlehnert4148Ай бұрын
Well, here after your very kind comment on my comment on Brian Holdsworth's video on his experience with LDS Missionaries. BTW, until 2010, I lived about a mile south of the Mesa Temple, on Horne. Even in the most devout Catholic cultures in history, where you had large Catholic families with sons and daughters to give to the Church, vocations were a distinctly minority choice. No Catholic (including Orthodox with their strong celibate monastic traditions) was even remotely threatened by population collapse because of celibate religious and clergy. Leaving aside the purely contemplative religious orders (praying is their job, pure and simple) pretty much every non-ordained religious brother and sister, or ordained priest more than pulls their weight in the greater society. Their love of God must be expressed in love and service to their neighbors.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@robertlehnert4148 hello there. I will say what I often say when speaking to critics of church History (be it LDS or Catholic) and think I did in this video.. Church History is far less important than church future. Population/demographic collapse is a reality for Catholicism. I heard Eric Sammons from Crisis radio talking about the numbers and how in 50 years the church will no longer be "universal" Catholic priests have become the kamikaze pilots of religious warfare. They need to get back in the game of multiplying and replenishing if the church plans to be in the game 50 years from now. The LDS church leaders are all married and all have families...they are playing the long game.
@robertlehnert4148Ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 Catholic demographic collapse comes pretty exclusively from the influence of surrounding secular culture, rather than your assumption its the example of celibate clergy and religious. Catholic laity contracept just as much as non-Catholics, they marry less just as much as non-Catholics (while having sex outside marriage) and the incidents of abortions for convenience is only slightly lower than Protestants . Since vocations plummeted in the post Vatican 2 era,, suddenly allowing them to marry and multiply ain't going to make a dent in the hemorrhaging--but, the few growing orders are the more conservative and rigorous one. That's also holds true for the Trad side of the Catholic world. The laity who go to the allowed Tridentine Latin Parishes are having a hard time fitting into the pews. They have a much more healthy demographic mix of all ages, especially child bearing couples who are much more obedient in following the prohibition against artificial contraception. I recommend you visit a Mass at a FSSP Parish to update your assumptions.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@robertlehnert4148 Re marriage: How do their numbers compare to LDS rather than just non Catholics for marriage, children, and abortions? Can culture be blamed exclusively for why some churches do better than others? Is culture inside the organization more impactful than the culture outside or less? Re: Tridentine. I'm willing to visit any service but I admit I don't have a handle on the different... Denominations?? What would the right word be? Inside the Catholic Church. I don't know what Tridentine is...I've visited Latin Mass and I think the Trads are the stalwarts. IMO it makes the case for the collapse I mentioned since the fractures imply a lack of unity/oneness. The doctrine and covenants have a great scripture where the Lord commands.us to be ONE (like in John 17) and says if ye are not one ye are not mine. I hear Catholics online and in person talk about the difficulty of finding the right kind of Catholic Church to attend or passing several parishes to go to specific church... Much as you've recommended. I've been to LDS wards on almost every continent and they are all essentially identical. Everyone is assigned a home ward and expected to contribute... Which is essential to creating the oneness Christ desires among his people. Lots of interesting content for Bryan on KZbin to discuss instead of the typical standard Nature or God/polygamy stuff that all the other Catholic hosts talk about.
@robertlehnert4148Ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 I'll willingly admit LDS does a better job of maintaining beliefs (aside from validity, one way or another) and cohesion, and the Mission experience seems to be a big part of it. Why way too many Catholics became lax, dissident, even heretical and apostate, to say the least, is a long and complicated story. Born in 1960, I barely remember the Latin Mass as the only Mass until the post Vatican 2 changes swept over us. That included, among other things, allowing Catholics to go to whatever parish they could travel to. Before then, it was much like LDS wards--your parish was your neighborhood parish. It promoted a social unity the "parish shoppers" lack. However, if you had a bad priest, you were largely stuck with him. However, the stability of the Tridentine/Latin Mass largely made that irrelevant. Especially if you followed the Missal (Latin on the rights side of the page, the translation on the left) you knew what was happening and generally why if was happening. Travel anywhere in the World and go to a Catholic (Western Rite) Mass, it was the same Mass. I hesitate to speak to a non Catholic about family squabbles, but the rush to replace the Tridentine Mass with the common language Novus Ordo was badly done, and not only left a lot of room for the simply awful liturgical experiments, making catholic worship seem awkward, strained, and dippy,--it could allow sacrilege when a Priest decided to change the language of the worship to whatever he thought more in line at whatever Modernist seminary he attended-. Seriously, at least in the English speaking world, we would have done FAR better to just adopt and re-Catholicize the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
@@robertlehnert4148 Could they go back to that system?? Probably not, once the glass shatters its difficult to put back together. Im reminded of Rush Limbaughs comment that our historical perspective starts the day we are born. My take on your description is that the church is experiencing apostasy. There are a couple options: 1) The church can correct it and have not done so, for reasons only known to them. 2) The church cannot correct it. Brian H in the other video asked the missionaries "when exactly did the Apostasy begin" and said "they didn't have an answer?" Its weird because Horn, Pints, Skojeck (RIP) Marshall, etc et al spend a TON of time describing rampant apostasy in the present, while denying it existed in the past. It's not logical, but whatever. The apostasy started in the Epistles. You've been honest enough with me to admit you've been witnessing apostasy your entire life. My honest Catholic friends offline don't hold back...they are disgusted by what they are witnessing, but anchored by their habit of rationalizing everything they see with cope phrases like "God wins in the end" or "Don't leave Jesus for Judas" It's hard to watch these same people go and facebook and complain about how their kids are being indoctrinated in school or how itate they used to be when hearing "Yes we can" Politically red-pilled and spiritually blue-pilled. My belief is that this same experience (Apostasy started in my lifetime) has been repeated in the life of every faithful Catholic generation since the Council of Nicea...and it shows no sign of slowing down. Who on the leadership team is going to turn the ship around? Can it be turned around? How do they reverse the 6/1 ratio? Someone should ask Brian why they seem to have no answer for any of these questions.
@MarkParenti-ve2vqАй бұрын
I'm a big fan of Flynn but this is a terrible interview. This kid is all across the board with one irrelevancy after another and doesn't drive it to the point of what's going on with Jim Jones. I'm stopping at the halfway point.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
All complaints are taken very seriously and will be shared with management.
@emilybrereton702Ай бұрын
Wait wait… I can follow you sort of about how Adam and Eve didn’t know they were naked or what sex was (like children) and then after the fruit felt shame and hid…but your conclusion from just that is “they were not mortal”?! Then them hiding in shame from disobeying God proves they had became mortal? After all that talk about Mike winger not using the Bible, this conclusion seems like a big leap with not actual linking Bible words. It could have just been that they were like innocent children before then hid from shame. That’s exactly what mortal human children do : disobey then hide in shame because temptation caused them to miss the mark (aka sin)
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
Hiding proves they had acquired knowledge, not that they were immortal. The fact that the other tree in the garden was blocked by cherubim and a flaming sword proves they were now mortal. The tree of life would have allowed them to live forever after sinning which means Christ could not redeem them or resurrect them.
@nemanjamirkovic7584Ай бұрын
Marriage in Genuine Orthodox Churche is a Holy Mistery - Holy Spirit is involved. It can't be compared with secular marriage which is not a marriage in God's eyes. Real marriage can start only through real genuine Orthodox priest or bishop, who can give them the God's Grace of the Holy marriage sacrament.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
Orthodox might be the closest thing I've seen to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doctrine which is that marriage is for all time and eternity when performed by someone with authority to "bind and seal" on Earth and in Heaven. Marriage was not designed to end or be affected by death.
@correctinghistory1887Ай бұрын
Hate book about America, you can write any history on every country or every tribe. Think about writing a history book about Maya from victim perspective. These people have destroyed the once proud, hard working nation that has listen humanity.
@HaleStorm49Ай бұрын
Too much human sacrifice gets any culture and people wiped out. Sorry.
@cameronreed14112 ай бұрын
This day you will be with me in paradise - Christ's words After His resurrection Christ says I have not yet ascended to my Father. So he wasn't in the presence of God between when He and the two thieves died, and His resurrection three days later. Where was he? The spirit world. Interesting that this Pastor doesn't know the scriptures well enough to understand that and thinks they all just immediately went to the presence of God.
@MrsCalabresesTeachingChannel2 ай бұрын
Just finished this book; it's excellent yet challenging to read. Thank goodness for Mr. Ibrahim!
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it. It's probably time for me to read it again ;)
@badbones2tone2 ай бұрын
1 Corinthians 1:17. OK check it. If u have to be baptised in order to be saved then you also have to be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect to be saved. We are under grace my friend. I'm not saying not to get baptised, but being baptised isn't what saves you, Jesus is. If u think u get to heaven by something u did, then u are in error. You can't even get credit for being saved cus u believed, because God gets all the credit. for we are saved by grace thru faith not by faith. That's why Paul knew the importance of saving faith, which is in Jesus, and not anything else.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
Cliff makes this common mistake of conflating "saved" with _eternal life_ They are described in different contexts and with varying requirements in scripture...because they aren't the same thing. Only one of them requires being perfect, like our Father in Heaven.
@badbones2tone2 ай бұрын
@HaleStorm49 if you don't mind, can you please expound further on what u just said about the differences between saved and eternal life. I'm honestly just looking for clarity. Thanks 👊 and have a great day 😀
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
@@badbones2tone Certainly - perhaps I will make a video on it. matthew 5:48 (which you quoted) includes Christs counsel to all of us to be perfect, like our Heavenly Father is perfect. This was after a long Sermon (on the mount) which was a higher law than the law of Moses. Higher law than the 10 commandments. Christ was giving us a roadmap to achieve this perfection, which eventually we will be able to achieve. When people talk about being _saved_ Its usually in the Romans 10:3 context of believing in God and confessing...but that isn't what Christ was referring to in the Sermon on the Mount - much more is obviously required. In Matthew 19 Christ tells a rich young ruler that if he wants to be "perfect" he must give up the one thing he cares about the most and come follow Jesus Christ. The young master despite claiming to have kept ALL the commandments - is unwilling to do so. This is a brief overview of what I mean when I say we conflate "salvation" with "eternal life" you have to look them up and pay attention to how they are described and what is required for each. They are not the same. Speaking of life Christ said, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life...and few there be that find it" Matt 7 Many many more will be "saved" than receive eternal life. Cliff doesn't understand the difference. He believes in heaven & hell only. Paul taught about three heavens (2 Cor) and three degrees of resurrected glory (1 Cor 15) but they are not well understood by modern sectarian Christianity. Feel free to ask anything you like.
@badbones2tone2 ай бұрын
Did u say the thief on the cross was already baptized 😂 And u have the audacity to say cliff was making a huge assumption. Wow smh.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
Not assumption. Deduction.
@ever-pj9qf2 ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 Baptism by water is no longer necessary, because the law grants us nothing but death, if you wish to do it, then do it, but don't think it saves you outright. Our imperfections are accented when compared with the law. "But after me, one comes who is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." All who accept Christ and believe in him and do the will of his Father have already been baptized by the Spirit of God.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
@@ever-pj9qf If it wasn't necessary then Christ would not have done it. Even John the Baptist seemed surprised that Christ Himself would be baptized. My video was meant to help with these misconceptions about why we require baptism and how it works. the Holy Spirit comes after baptism.
@JD-pr1et2 ай бұрын
Cheap grace is one heck of an attractor. When I was an Evangelical Christian many years ago, I realized that the end result of that doctrine was that people could continue to sin after being "saved" because the finished work of Christ takes care of everything and nothing we do has any effect on that. I relate that to having a magical get out of hell free card just for saying a sinner's prayer and inviting Christ in one's heart. However, many Christians do realize one's behavior should change, rather than accept the full import of the cheap grace doctrine. As you noted, the many scriptures that state what the Savior requires to accept His atonement led me to reject that quasiscriptural doctrine and eventually found the restored Gospel which takes into account all the scriptures related to this subject that I found nowhere else in Christianity.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
When you've done it as long as this guy and have a TV show (and now Internet program) dedicated to answering questions.... Shouldn't the light bulb 💡 eventually go off when you've reached the limitations of your doctrine?
@JD-pr1et2 ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 It should, but I think that getting to the scriptural doctrines can get one cancelled and prevents some people from getting there.
@sandspurpatch2 ай бұрын
I was in eighth grade during desegregation. The level of order and behavior went down the tank. The white kids continued to be punished. I personally witnessed horrific violent acts go unpunished when black on white. I personally carried brass knucks everyday henceforth. I realized it was easy to appologize.
@staciebrooks25832 ай бұрын
LDS is not Christianity. They believe in a different Jesus.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
Different...meaning better? A more loving and more powerful Jesus ftw!
@staciebrooks25832 ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 no the Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus that every knee will bow to and confess he is Lord. Every demon in hell is in subjugation to him. Only his life, death, and resurrection is able to grant people eternal life in Heaven. He is the word of God personified. What is more loving then laying down your life for another and what could be more powerful then what I just described?
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
@@staciebrooks2583 sounds like we believe the same thing. Why so hostile?
@staciebrooks25832 ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 i haven’t been hostile. If Jesus is the only way to inherit eternal life and someone perverts that then it’s important to call that out because they’re preaching a Jesus that can not save. Scripture says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man so it’s important we get him right. Muslims claim to believe in Jesus too. “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” Galatians 1:8
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
@@staciebrooks2583the Galatians couldn't keep it straight 1925 years ago with Paul in their presence. Its changed quite a bit since then and not because of angels. You are right to be concerned. Modern Christianity is a shell of what it once was.
@therese23012 ай бұрын
This dude goes so far as to claim that non Christians getting married is a sin yet encourages men to live a life of sin and sexual deviance? He is a complete hypocrite
@seankelley14342 ай бұрын
Nah. I like both Lauren and Andrew, but secular marriages fail more than they succeed. So in essence, if you remove Christ from the marriage, you likely will lose your kids, half your belongings that God entrusted to you and more. Almost like being half way committed to him by following his path without wanting him to be a part of it.
@bagonza95932 ай бұрын
We were all gentiles (secular) at some point in time. Secular people can also change and their posterity can be religious
@elibennett61682 ай бұрын
For those who are non LDS and love Jesus - Christ is very clear that marriage ends with death and no one will be married in heaven since we will be like the angels (Mark 12:25). This was in answer to the "who's wife is the woman who marries again after previous husbands die), so pretty straightforward. If you teach something other than this you are teaching something anti Christ.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
This is incorrect. This is the result of common core christianity. IE Doctrine by committee.
@elibennett61682 ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 It is indeed correct. If you would like to argue using Christian scripture, I'll hear your points, but I do not accept LDS writings. They teach a different gospel. Death as a boundary of marriage is likewise in 1 Corinthians 7: "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God."
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
@@elibennett6168 Sure. You mean creedalist when you say "christian" but it's not just an argument of which words are inspired but how they are interpreted. For example using Mark 12: 23 In the resurrection therefore, when *THEY* shall rise, whose wife shall she be of *THEM*? for the seven had her to wife. _The question is not about what happens to everyone, it's about what happens to the individuals in this very specific (and ridiculous) example meant to trip up the Master. The pronouns are they/them_ 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? _How well do you need to understand the scriptures and discern God's power to comprehend that marriage ends at death? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Christ is criticizing them, not for suggesting there is marriage in heaven, but for failing to understanding the doctrine well enough that they asked the question in the way that they did. They should know that under the law of Moses the additional marriages are just to provision for the wife and children and ensure the family name is preserved. Only the original marriage would have been sealed/bound on Earth and in Heaven._ The Sanhedrin did not understand or teach the doctrine correctly, despite understanding it better than 4th century creedalists. 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, *THEY* neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. _Nowhere does Christ even imply this anecdote applies to anyone other than *THEY*. The only marriage still in force is to the original husband. The sibling marriages served a purpose in mortality only. Believers don't even pause to question how weird it is that you have to marry an in law under the temporal law? Absent the understanding or eternal and temporal marriages this policy is ...how do the atheists say it? Weird. Misguided and uninspired (but well meaning) Pastors and Priests who do not possess authority beyond the power vested in them by the state have decided at their councils that these verses apply to everyone. It tells you more about the pastors than the doctrine._ Paul was clarifying how the policy of temporal marriage worked now that they non longer adhered to the law of Moses. The LDS doctrine has a more nuanced view of those same verses which takes into account the scriptures and the power of God. Modern creedalism takes that verse out of context and and applies it at scale to everyone, everywhere, all at once. With God all things are possible.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
@@elibennett6168 I should add that there is some Tomi Lahren "my truth" irony in the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God will not force you to accept any doctrine against your will. God is pro choice. If you are convinced there is no marriage in heaven - then you won't be. Your marriage will be aborted at death and God will honor your choice.
@elibennett61682 ай бұрын
@@HaleStorm49 It is NOT creedalism to argue from scripture. Creedalism has to do with sayings outside of scripture, which is not at all what is being done. You have not proved that the Christian scriptures state marriage goes on in heaven; therefore, there is no compelling evidence you are correct in what you say The marriage situation that they attempted to trip up Jesus on was Levirate marriage, and it is a real marriage - otherwise it would not be called a marriage nor would children be legitimate. Only the first born son was raised in the name of the deceased brother so that the name and property rights would continue throughout the generations. However, the other children were indeed the issue of brother who engaged in the Levirate marriage. It was used to argue with Jesus because there was a duty to provide for the deceased brother's lineage. What they did not understand is exactly what Jesus indicated: angels do not marry and believers will be like them in the after life. They were so focused on physical life, they missed the spiritual, and the resurrection to imperishable bodies that do not marry. This syncs up nicely with the other scripture I cited that indicates a woman is no longer bound to her husband when he dies, as well as the corresponding scripture that shows a man is likewise bound. They are free to marry again because the bond ends at death as shown in scripture. And It IS a marriage because it is the same Greek word root that all the marriage scriptures use.
@elibennett61682 ай бұрын
Marriage is part of common grace - of course the marriage is valid. People got married before there were churches and preachers to marry them (isn't this obvious?). Marriage is declared good before the fall. Even if the marriage fails, any children born are legitimate. Even if the marriage fails, you can honor God through your witness of how you handle difficult life events. And you may be among the (moderate) majority where the marriage doesn't fail, meaning you have a partner for life. Just because parents are secular, does not mean the children won't come to faith - why would anyone assume that? Same goes in the opposite direction, children of Christian marriages may turn from the faith. That's not for anyone else to presuppose. The reality is, people generally live better lives to build a future for their children, than they would without children. Not hard and fast in cases, but there it is.
@MikeyForLife2 ай бұрын
The consciousness of sin is the issue. Hebrews tells us we should not have a conscious of our sin. Jesus took our sin in his body, that body was crushed with sin in it, the body resurrected SIN DID NOT. If God no longer remembers my sin when I’m saved why should I???
@smidlee77472 ай бұрын
-Even J Vernon McGee in the 70"s on "Thur the Bible" mention it is a sin for some people to get married and if you go through the entire Bible you would know this. Andrew just takes it too far claiming all unbelievers marriage is a sin which is not scriptural. It's the believer shouldn't marry an unbeliever is where marriage is a sin. God can bless even unbelievers who do good including marriage as Jesus pointed out God allows to sun to shine and rain to fall on the just and unjust. Christians shouldn't waste too much energy trying to get unbelievers to live like believers. As McGee put it we are told to "fish" for men and not told to clean up the pond. Still as Christians we still prefer the unbelievers embrace Jesus Christ teachings over someone else teachings like Muhammad. Very important Christian doctrine is death ends a marriage agreement. Baptism represent "death" to the world ending that agreement of sin and bond with the new, with Christ. Death to sin and now alive in Christ. Earthly marriage is a shadow of the real thing. The church as the bride of Christ , Israel as the bride to the Father. This is why we named the two parts of the Bible: the Old Testament (Covenant) and the New Testament (Covenant). The Old Testament (Covenant ) had to be fulfilled and how did God "Saved" us from the condemnation of the Old Covenant? Through the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Jesus had to die in order to fulfill the Old Covenant and set us free.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
Jesus I know, and Paul also...but who is Vernon? What Goth hath joined together let no man tear asunder. Your understanding of the purpose and duration of marriage is too myopic.
@aviator0372 ай бұрын
Marriage is NOT mandatory. The Bible says if you are single do not seek to be married and if you are married then do not seek to be single. It also says that it’s better for a man not to get married.
@HaleStorm492 ай бұрын
the Bible says? Who was Paul speaking to and in what context? Paul contradicted this teaching in other epistles. Obviously there is a reason for this.
@gandalfthegamer40673 ай бұрын
1 Corinthians 13 spoke it said love from God is an agreement to do some things all the time and some things so long as it's not provoked which is not easily accomplished, while unprovoked Love is a kindness that enacts to preserve and protect you and it never lies to you. I remember one time I had a dream out of the 8,000+ times I've been asleep a dream that has not happened before it has not happened since, and I've had the recipe to make it hundred a days before it happened and hundreds of days after it happened. I could have dreamed about anything, I dreamed about a dog, which is a symbol of unbelief in the Bible and Jesus part of Matthew 7:6 give not that which is holy unto the dogs, a dog could have done anything it dug a hole, it could have dug any kind of hole, it dug a very deep hole and anything could have been at the bottom of that hole but a few verses in the Bible come to mind and anything could have happened when I climbed out of that hole but part of Romans 10 said that you must believe that Jesus has been raised from the dead to be saved. In the beginning was the word and the Word was God in the word was with God John 1:1 the word" or the message of God" was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of the only begotten of the father full of grace and truth. John 1:14 Wisdom is the principal thing therefore get wisdom in and all that getting get understanding proverbs 4:7 Understanding is a Wellspring of Life unto him that has it but the instruction of fools is folly proverbs 16:22 I found it important that if somebody comes to me and says "there's nothing worth fighting for" "that doesn't require a fight." That to know their heart I would have had to stay the whole time and not just for the first part It is also the case that the hundred of days I prayed for help and saving have I ner been led to any other name. Not Buddha not ba'hai, not Shinto not Jehovah by himself, not Muhammad, not Hindu, none but he who sits at the right hand of the father. I also want you to study to see how deception can be so subtle. How one word missing or one word altered from the original idea and intent can change a conversation. But numbers 12:6 and if there be a prophet among you I shall make myself known to him and in a vision and in a dream. If you believe God's real like I believe God is real why don't you just start talking to Jesus and find out.
@christopherperez88433 ай бұрын
1:20 Your justification for marriage for a *secular* man is that it is one of the first mandates of God. The secular man doesn't care about God. He's secular for a reason. A secular man will not follow the 10 commandments because he doesn't believe in God. He cannot follow the first four commandments. You are asking the secular man who wants to stay secular to act in accordance with Christian beliefs. It's like asking a Christian to follow secular beliefs. They are incompatible and the notion of having to follow the other's belief system would be rejected. 2:06 The secular man does not want sanctification. If he did, then he would follow Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. 2:25 Better citizens - agreed. This is only true if the man wanted to be a father in the first place. The men largely being selected for sex are bad boys who end up becoming baby daddies who know only how to excite a woman but don't want or know how to be a husband/father. Instead we will get better citizens, if the men who are desired by women, given marriage, and frequent sex are the good, hardworking, faithful and stable men not the womanizer who is quick to abandon. When I was a Latter-day Saint I saw many YSA women across multiple states (especially in Provo), spend a lot of their dating time with men who only wanted to NCMO, soak, or were frankly out of their league. These were even the highly touted RMs participating in this. All while rejecting the stable good guy and then complaining about how they are treated poorly by men. We won't get better citizens if most of the men that are chosen for marriage and sex are exciting bad boys instead of stable, well adjusted good men. Most Christian churches nowadays and even the Latter-day Saint faith permit divorce and remarriage despite Biblical prohibitions against it (Luke 16:18, Matthew 19:9, Matthew 5:31-32, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Mark 10:11-12). This brings the secular issue of disastrous consequences to the husband combined with easy to execute divorce on the part of the woman (this isn't sexism, this is just looking at the 70% of divorces are initiated by woman, higher if they are college educated statistic) to the Christian world. The modern day "marriage" is disincentivized based on the consequence for divorce and dwindling quantity of traditional women. 2:38 - If the secularist doesn't reproduce then their belief system dies out. There was a time when Muslims owned the major cities in Italy and the native Italians were in the rural areas. Those Muslims died out because their reproduction rate was far below replacement, as most major cities across time tend to do, and thus their belief system was removed. He is recommending that only Christians reproduce so that there can be more authentic Christians exist in the future vs the secularist who hates God. 8:40 - Andrew is not a wokeist nor a leftist. 13:30 You say it's woke to believe in till death do us part. Read 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3. It literally says she is free to be remarried to another believer if her husband dies. "A wife is bound to her husband *as long as he lives*. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 1 Timothy 5:9 even prohibts the church from enrolling a widow who was the wife of one husband and known for good works under the age of 60 on to the support roll because she'll turn from her pledge and seek marriage again. A few verses later in 1 Timothy 5:14 encourages younger woman (both single and widows) to seek marriage, have children, manage their household, and give no opportunity for the enemy to accuse. 16:30 Marriage is for life only because Luke 20:34-35 says that there will be no marriage in heaven. I used to be a Latter-day Saint so I get the "work-around" that Latter-day Saints give stating that the dead can get married by proxy across the veil. That is not Biblical.