Protestantism Debunked in 15 Minutes

[@vros14]

It's Orthodox, but not Jewish, it's Catholic but not Roman; it's Evangelical, but not protestant, it's not denominational, but pre-denominational; it's not ancient, it's not modern, it is eternal. Wow, beautifully put.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

I saw it on a Orthodox website! It is a great summary of what it is to be a Orthodox Christian (:

[@nonfecittaliter4361]

If it is not Catholic, it is not the Church of Christ, period. 'Orthodox' churches are national churches and sectarian like the protestant ones, far from the will of Christ. And, specially, they broke with the Pope (sucessor of Saint Peter) the only one legitimate top authority of the Church designed by Christ himself.

[@vros14]

@@nonfecittaliter4361 cringe + heretic + MUH CHAIR + MUH KEYS

[@cM-rd3hd]

Actually Orthodox are the true Jews

[@CoolOldBiker]

​@Lion Mike same here ! ❤

[@LibertyPotato]

As a Protestant learning about Orthodoxy, I have never in my life heard anyone reject the Pentecost or any mention of the church being 'invisible' and I think that goes for most other Protestants (Maybe just in my area)

[@OrthodoxKyle]

WE know the Holy Spirit guides the Church... So it does not error.. But if you are a Protestant. then you think that Church went away and needed to be reformed... This is incorrect. This is what I mean by they deny Pentecost.. They won't say it.. but they think the Church fell away (Rome did).. Not the Orthodox Church... Check out my other videos & GET the book Rock & Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham. It will answer Protestant Questions. God bless!

[@acekoala457]

A lot of it is implied. Because you can't find any sort of Protestant Piety or Doctrine prior to the 16th Century.

[@StephanieHarris-eu7jn]

There are quite a few generalizations that were made that are not true aside from prospect gospel nonsense. It is not representative of Protestantism as a whole. As a Protestant I don’t understand why I need a priest to confess to when I can pray directly to God. It’s not like he’s too busy for us! Nor do I see anywhere in the Bible where we pray to saints. It would be cool if someone could help bridge the knowledge gap on that one.

[@cayetanohuett9037]

@@StephanieHarris-eu7jn Do you confess your sins to other Christians so they may be witness to your healing? You do not confess to the priest in Orthodoxy so that the priest may forgive you, you confess to Jesus Christ to God and the priest is the witness to your forgiviness. James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. 2 Samuel 12:13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. 1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

[@StephanieHarris-eu7jn]

@@cayetanohuett9037 Thanks for the clarification.

[@mattsell2361]

Didn’t Jesus get mad at the Pharisees because they were so obsessed with tradition and judged people who didn’t follow their tradition exactly? We don’t need a one true church all we need is faith and great teachers

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

EXACTLY!!! they claim to follow christ yet ignore his teachings to praise man!

[@sakamotosan1887]

The Pharisees having traditions that were bad doesn't mean traditions are bad. They wore clothing too, are you going to abandon that as well? (please don't.) Tradition isn't inherently bad. The tradition of men is to be left aside, but the Tradition which was handed down by word of mouth or by epistle is of God. The word simply means "that which is handed down". There's nothing magical or spooky about the word "tradition".

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

@@sakamotosan1887 Okay. Which tradition is the true tradition then? The orthodox chruch claims to be the first so does the catholic. The orthodox have many denominations and so do the Catholics. Which one is correct exactly, and if one is correct why are people led by God to say a Pentecostal chruch, catholic or orthodox? No building on earth is the "true" church. The only true church are the followers of christ. Regardless of denomination.

[@OdysseyMMA22]

Noo you dont know any history now you speaking out your ass​@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings

[@dimensionninja4929]

Amen bro,

[@noahaustin4954]

Bro boy straight up put Baptists in the same category as Jehovah witnesses. Thanks for being charitable man. Appreciate it😂. Ya, just put people who affirm essential Christian doctrines with people who deny the divinity of Christ

[@toddthacker8258]

Yeah that's not incredibly unifying.

[@brianrich7828]

He has no clue what he’s talking about. They worship idols and legit exhumed corpses.

[@sakamotosan1887]

@@toddthacker8258 Tough. Baptists have left behind MANY essential doctrines of the faith, like baptismal regeneration, and tend to be quite iconoclastic.

[@toddthacker8258]

@@sakamotosan1887 Thinking baptismal regeneration is an "essential doctrine" when the thief on the cross exists is quite a flex. Was reading through 1 John today. Lots on how we are to love and believe. Nothing on "oh, and baptism saves too."

[@Nikolai.A.McGuire]

@@toddthacker8258 James 2:17 enters the chat: ✊🚪

[@Nihit_Arora_Eagle]

Born and raised as a hindu, converted to protestant pentecostal 11 years ago. The more I learn orthodox teachings, doctrines & history the more I fell in love with it especially with my Lord Jesus. Now on my way to become an orthodox christian after researching the true apostolic church.. Looking any nearest orthodox church to me to enroll myself as a catechumen. I have embraced orthodox faith☦️❤️ - brother nihit arora

[@johnmackie9498]

Great to hear God bless you on your journey into the Orthodox church.

[@LookForTheDay]

Me too it seems

[@believer431]

I was raised in a hindu family but I'm a Christian. God bless you bro

[@harshwardhansingh6433]

born Hindu still a Hindu, but find orthodoxy intriguing as I find a lot many parallels with Hinduism.

[@Jo3K1ng3]

Yo, I’m Catholic, though I’d much rather you be Catholic cause it’s the true faith. I will say orthodox and Catholics agree on 99% of things. But God bless you anyways. Much respect.

[@fumples4080]

Preaches sola scriptura, changes scripture

[@jg4588]

Wrong! "Saved by faith alone" is in Scripture! Let me teach you a little something. James 2:24 "You see a man is saved by his works and not *SAVED BY FAITH ALONE*! Wait . . .

[@williamavitt8264]

@Θεόδωρος you have reading comprehension issues, I take it?

[@ThumbKnuckle]

@Θεόδωρος Who does the good works of a Christian belong to? Christ. As a protestant (lcms Lutheran) I would say I am justified by works, but the works that justify me are done by Christ in me and not my sinful self and are a part of the finished work on the cross.

[@evanfrost9586]

@@ramirodepalma7178 beautiful explanation

[@lkae4]

Don't get mad just because our Jewish canon matches the canon of the Jews, lol. We got that right. What else did we get right?

[@Sonoftsiyyonn]

This video had tons of misrepresentations in it. Protestants use church history, regular history, etc to understand the Bible. We just believe these outside sources should be taken as a grain of salt and in light of what the Bible teaches. This is a bit gross to use the worst examples of Christians (mega church pastors) to be an example for the entire faith. In reality , most devout believers do not agree with or attend mega churches.

[@nit2266]

thing is the same outside sources were the ones who put together the Bible

[@dominikdurkovsky8318]

Of which you took away the 11 or 10 extra books, then preached sola scriptura. Not only that, but you also have created a chain reaction of dire consequences due to sola scriptura. Most of the atheists I ever watched, became atheists because of sola scriptura bc some pastor of theirs tried to justify the genocide of Saul, of which the issue could have easily been taken care of by looking at the historical and cultural context and seeing that it's ancient hyperbole, like in the mesha stelle.

[@nit2266]

@@dominikdurkovsky8318 i agree with this wholeheartedly

[@jaytv4eva]

1. ALL the books of the Bible are in Luther's Bible, including James, Jude, and Revelation. 2. Luther did more in his lifetime to not only educate Germans but to provide schools and institutions with copies of a Bible they could read and study at their pace and within several months, even a milkmaid could have decent discussions and debates with the Catholic clergy on scripture. 3. Luther used the Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, the Textus Receptus, AND 2nd Bomberg Edition to translate the Bible into the language of the ppl AND enlisted the help of other experts in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek to aid in translation as well. 4. Finally, Luther INCLUDED THE APOCRYPHA and made sure to inform his readers that while it is good for reading, it wasn't on same lvl of scripture. Why? BECAUSE THE JEWS DIDN'T INCLUDE IT AS PART OF THEIR SCRIPTURES! Y'all need more Jesus and less Anti-Prot propaganda, smh

[@dominikdurkovsky8318]

@@jaytv4eva though you're right about this to an extent, you still forget that what he decided to do, caused that chain reaction, which lead to both theological and physical chaos (30 years war). Let me explain, why the belief of Prima scriptura or scriptura ultima is problematic: This teaching teaches that scripture Has a Higher Authority than the church, thus this probably concludes, that the church is fallible. This causes an issue, since if the church is fallible, a person Has to decide WHERE it is fallible, including the councils. The Justification of those rejections of what the orthodox or catholic church believed is always rooted in the PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE AND SUBJECTIVE REASONING. AKA, the people are STILL the ones who fallibly decide where the church is right, and where the church is wrong, thus STILL making the people popes. Imma make up a situation to explain this: A: "Romans 9 prove calvinism." B: " that's wrong. It's just refering to a chapter in the book of Isaiah" A:" It could've, but how do you know it did?" B:" Well, you Gotta look at the original Interpretation of the scriptures to understand it" A:" Wait, didn't the original Interpretation of the scriptures Also teach the seven sacraments, taught the bible wasn't the Higher nor final Authority and that teachings outside the bible by the church were still infallible?" B:" Yes" A:" And you disagree with those teachings?" B: "Yes" A: " Then how do you know that they were right about those teachings, but not about the others? Simply put: the disagreement with the original orthodox church on their teaching will always be subjective whilst relying on cherry-picking,leading to the person being the one to decide where it is wrong, which lead to the splintering od the church we have now. Just because it looks good on the outside with the bible having a Higher Authority doesn't mean it's gonna work. THIS lead to what we have now (the endless splintering of protestantism and the impossible attempt to have a Church in there, because of the fact anyone can subjectively justify which of the protestant churches is the right one on these things with their personal interpretation of the bible and subjective opinions) is because of what Luther started. I agree, that Luther did Well by helping All to have the same chance to study and have knowledge, but that doesn't excuse the fact, that he caused the most chaotic splintering of churches which even gave rise to cults. I do apologize for some accusations on Luther and the reformation as back then I didn't know that much about lutherans, their doctrine, but I still find it problematic due to the reasons I gave. Also sola fide is unbelievably dumb. There's a difference between believing in God and FOLLOWING God. Even demons believe in God. The bandit on the cross in his last Moments decided to follow God instead of just suffering on that cross and doing nothing. And if it is so, that I misunderstood sola fide, then why do people even argue over this and call it "only faith"? I don't think it makes sense to be divided in this if it's just a wording problem. I think.

[@Spencizzle1]

1 minute in and this guy doesn’t know what sola scriptura is

[@Spencizzle1]

Bro, this is such a straw-man lol. You could watch a layman like redeemed zoomer for like 20 minutes and understand this is a total misrepresentation of Protestantism

[@Spencizzle1]

Or a Baptist like Gavin Ortlund. Do some research brother. Praying for you

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

i mean he has points about priesthood it is biblical same with Pentecost and the endless fractures but those fractures came from orthodoxy so that ruins his point im not going to convert to orthodoxy while it is a great Church i disagree with some things i dont believe there is a "1 true church" on earth aside form Christs followers it doesn't matter what building you step into as long as it actually follows Christ unlike mormons the Church isnt a building its the people of christ

[@Theophoruz]

Sola scriptura is self-defeating because the very early church did not have a fully developed canon. The canon was developed by the traditions of the apostles passed down by apostolic succession. Even the Bible itself says to trust the traditions, not just the Bible itself. Besides, if the Canon of scripture was infallible, how come Martin Luther removed books from the Bible? It would seem a certain part of the Canon is wrong somehow, and they removed it? I thought it was infallible. (Also, I'm not rejecting that the Scriptures are infallible, I'm just saying that according to protestantism, it is, yet they removed books because some of them were wrong.)

[@Theophoruz]

The early church didn't actually think the scriptures were the only infallible authority. Or any seed of it. Therefore, protestants may claim they have the faith of the early church. However, they contradict it. They thought the Church was able to discern between canon and not canon. Therefore, they had a higher authority over the traditions of the scriptures. The early church held that the church was guided by the Holy Spirit, preserving it from error, making it infallible. The canon was only held as authoritative because of the discernment of the Church of whether it held apostolic teaching. Meaning they held a higher view of apostolic teaching than the scriptures. So, here is how I conclude, while yes, the scriptures are an infallible source, the early church thought the scriptures were canonical due to the discernment of the Church of whether it was apostolic teaching or not. They thought that the church was also preserved from error just as much as the Bible was, as long as it held to apostolic teaching, (which was a decision that the church made for whether the scriptures were apostolic or not). Making both infallible but also having the church as a higher authority for discernment. Nor did the Early Church ever teach Sola Fide or any seed of it. They believed that faith was intertwined with works and that works were outpouring of faith.

[@Phrostybacone]

Martin Luther reached out to the Orthodox church several times and the Orthodox church rejected many of the most central conclusions of the reformation: Namely, salvation by faith alone.

[@dimensionninja4929]

once saved works with surely follow and is an evidence to our salvation... we can't earn our salvation, cuz if we could why did God have to come?? Not hating on the apostolics. Love them bro, just a genuine question. Because the thief on the cross next to Christ was saved, and he had no chance to do any works cuz he was on death row

[@Theophoruz]

Yeah because they contradicted apostolic tradition.

[@dimensionninja4929]

@@Theophoruz human beings are fallible whether apostolic or not, (Mark 7:8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. Christ wasn't even religious, religious people were his main opposition. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)

[@Theophoruz]

@@dimensionninja4929 Human beings? When I refer to apostolic traditions, I am referring to the teachings passed down and held by the Apostles. Who were the ones who taught us the faith of Jesus. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us we must keep the teachings they give us and the new traditions we have now in the New Covenant. We believe in the teachings that were taught to the apostles by Jesus. So we do not trust the traditions of men. We trust traditions that come directly from God.

[@dimensionninja4929]

@@Theophoruz so the venetration of Mary and Saints, believing in Purgatory, Iconography and such come from the apostles, even though there were no church buildings at the time. Only being build centuries later?

[@brisketandsomeribs9706]

I converted to orthodoxy from non-denominational Protestantism nearly 2 years ago, best decision of my life ☦️❤️

[@JessePinkman808]

I converted to Catholicism from non-denominational Protestantism about a year ago!!! we are similar

[@johnalexis8284]

and what did you do to convert to orthodoxy?

[@brisketandsomeribs9706]

@@johnalexis8284 studied Orthodoxy and it’s theology, became a catechumen, and then got baptized.

[@johnalexis8284]

@@brisketandsomeribs9706 nice try

[@brisketandsomeribs9706]

@@johnalexis8284 what do you mean

[@graceward2277]

I was raised protestant and in the search' for truth I've been in a limbo between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, its truly a miracle how i found you with such an underrated amount of subs. I will look more into becoming an Orthodox Christian.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Great! I have lots of videos on Protestants & Catholics.. Get the book Rock & Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham.. Good analysis & easy to read on Reformers.. AND visit a Church: orthodoxyinamerica.org/ let me know if you have questions, God bless!

[@bethanyapostolicmission4195]

www.youtube.com/@orthodoxchristianity101/playlists

[@franciscorivera1559]

dont go for catholiclism, countless amount of corrupt popes, exploiting verse for money

[@JessePinkman808]

Awesome! I recommend the Catholic and Orthodox church alike! I used to be a Protestant and then I made friends with a Catholic, and he takes me to mass! But the Orthodox Church is beautiful and well preserved in its teachings and layout.

[@albusai]

​@@OrthodoxKylekzbin.info/www/bejne/p3bbqWCJnqZ_eKcsi=FPGhz2AP2P0-MlCM that's your pope 😂

[@JB-pe8lu]

Food for thought! I've been in protestant churches for almost 40 years. I've been on a similar journey, as mentioned by another viewer, to find truth. So much of the Catholic theology makes sense to me, but I still struggle. I have a new love for Christian Orthodoxy...it seems "simple", straight forward, and I love that many of the priests so not hold back. They aren't afraid to speak the truth, even if it hurts. Exactly what is needed. Appreciate your work here!

[@1337wafflezz]

How does Catholicism make sense? To me it’s very odd and places zero emphasis or importance on the personal relationship with Jesus. They also basically take James to the extreme and believe in grace through works which is basically heretical. That being said I do appreciate their boldness(real catholics anyways…not that ridiculous Pope) and their reverence. Their tradition and adherence to rigid order sometimes can be a boon and strength

[@H2ORaccoon]

​@1337wafflezz the faith through works statement is not so heretical, James means it in the sense that your works are evidence of your faith, almost like a fruit, per se. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but unless their actions exude that, it's a hollow statement

[@dimensionninja4929]

@@H2ORaccoon amen

[@RedCloudGawdian]

This video assumes that Orthodoxy is the same all round. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches all have differences in tradition, with a few differences in doctrine too. Videos like this are kind of like making an idol out of Orthodoxy. Saying Sola Scriptura is unBiblical, but the source you'll use to show that is the Bible, indirectly proving Sola Scriptura. Everyone follows it unless they're heretics. Protestantism does lack a lot of continuity with the early church, and I agree that is a major flaw of Protestantism. Orthodoxy tends to be lazy though. I only see Protestants and Catholics actually outside trying to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth as Jesus taught us. Bringing up heretical groups such as JWs as though they are protestants suggests you're being disingenuous. I seriously can't believe you're blaming Protestantism for Mormons, and to ask what makes it more or less true is absolutely ridiculous. One actually denies the trinity, I think you can tell who is false quite easily!!! If we're going to blame Protestantism for Mormons, JW, and SDAs could we blame the Eastern Orthodox church for not preventing the rise of Islam? It's a ridiculous point and unBiblical because Jesus himself told us that false prophets would rise up and sway away Christians. I honestly think it would have been better to make a video about the positives of Orthodoxy rather trying to debunk Protestantism. You did this at the end of the video but many of your points are simply opinions. The very fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism were one and the same before the initial schism simply puts you on one side of a very large fence and without video evidence, none of us know which church was truly the first church. To say otherwise is a lie. Human beings are incredibly culturally diverse. In Africa alone, there are 54 countries with 5000 languages. God knows the end from the beginning, so he allowed us to have our cultural differences. The Holy Spirit leads each individual group, and as long as they aren't preaching a false Gospel, what's the problem? They're all your brothers and sisters in Christ. To say otherwise would be to claim authority that none of us have barring the guy who died on a cross for our sins 2000 years ago. On the subject of denominations. I go with the advice of Paul in Philippians Chapter 1. 15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. I rejoice when Christ is proclaimed, whether in pretense or truth, so long as it is the true Christ being proclaimed and no distortion of the Gospel. Men can argue on their interpretations, none of us will ever be 100% correct in our theology in my humble opinion and we'll all be sat at the feet of the Most High apologising like school children for all this petty bickering one day.

[@TadouYogiri]

How do you know which is the truth? look up the founder of the church. Who is the founder of church? Have your church followed and not change the church's teaching?

[@Theophoruz]

In Eastern Orthodoxy, despite the small differences between the countries in which the faith is practiced, Their theological beliefs are pretty much the same.

[@OrthoHoppean]

The Ethiopian Orthodox are Oriental Orthodox, which is a politically correct term for the Non-Chalcedionians. They are in schism from the Orthodox Catholic Church.

[@Justforthefifteen]

These doesn’t cancels out that protestantism is false

[@RussellTisdale]

One thing that became glaring in Protestantism was the lack of, and disdaining of monasticism.

[@thenowchurch6419]

Protestantism shares that disdain for monasticism with Islam. How is that working out for them?

[@Soulmodulation]

I have more of a lone wolf/ascetic personality, and that was definitely one of the more alienating aspects of Protestantism... You know, along side many of the irreverent practices in the modernist sect I was raised in, lol.

[@blockpartyvintage1568]

The Crown of Holy Orthodoxy is monasticism

[@jeffcarlson3269]

show me where monasticism..is at in the bible...

[@RussellTisdale]

@@jeffcarlson3269 you have the example of Elijah, of John the Baptist, the exhortation of Christ concerning eunuchs for the kingdom, the exhortation of Paul to virginity for the sake of service to God, you have communal living in the book of Acts, the virginal prophetesses - the daughters of Phillip, the order of widows. That’s just things that came to mind. Monasticism preserves all of these early Christian traditions and practices. Where are the virgins for the kingdom in Protestantism?

[@judahkozel8270]

I think you're a little confused about what protestants mean by Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that the bible is our only influence (this is called biblicism and most Protestants reject it). Sola Scriptura implies that all tradition has to be found/present in the scripture but other writings can also influence Christian tradition. Writings like Scots Confession, Heidelberg, Westminster, and other confessions. We do reject oral folklore like the assumption of Mary (Sorry) because it isn't found in scripture.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Where in scripture does it say that scripture is only infallible source? where does it say the cannon of Bible in the Bible?? You have to appeal to non-infallible tradition??? this makes no sense?? Holy Tradition ITSELF has to be infallible and that refutes Protestant Position.. and Protestants IGNORE MANY biblical things to varying degree based on denomination.. some reject Liturgy, Priesthood, Eucharist etc etc all together... We BOTH agree Rome is wrong.. but Protestants CAME from Rome?? Orthodox never errored.. PLEASE get the book Rock & Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham! best book on the topic!

[@ri3m4nn]

​@OrthodoxKyle where is says that we live on the word of God and not on the traditions of men. Weird right?

[@nadiadiiorio1850]

@@OrthodoxKyle Matthew 15 King James Version 15 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[@nadiadiiorio1850]

@@OrthodoxKylewell that’s how jewish people too, determined how to understand what book is enligned with the bible and what was not enligned: by reading the torah and reading what scriptures were enligned with the torah and what weren’t

[@nadiadiiorio1850]

@@OrthodoxKyleall these denominations don’t agree with what the bible says because the revelation of the Holy spirit is personal and not everyone happens to have it

[@JohnDoe-wt9ek]

-The Bible is the inspired Word of God... If I cannot rely on its own Author to determine its canonical authorship and authority, then its pointless... Plain and simple. Sola Scriptura is what allowed Paul to evangelize the Gentiles in the first place... Without the Old Testament, he would not have had a sufficient New Testament series of Letters to give. And the same of prophetic fulfillment in the Gospels... More importantly, if the Bible is not sufficient, then its the Catholic and Orthodox Churches' fault, respectively. You cannot claim authority through collection of the Scripture, and then tell Protestants to not rely on said collection as the sole inspired source... Because it entails two potential conclusions: A) You collected the Bible in error, and thus its no longer reliable. Which means now all of Christianity is in trouble... Because the claim of its errancy now means that all of it is questionable to its veracity and accuracy... (and there is such sufficient real world, non-biblically authored writings and archaeological digs to prove this point otherwise false)... OR: B) You are in error, and contrary to the source material that calls you out. And because its God Breathed and Inspired, it can't be in error. Such a collection of documents could not potentially be wrong or manipulated if it is the Truth. You can't have a God Inspired Word, and then deem it insufficient and must therefore add "tradition" on top of the Word... Its contradictory to God's Supreme Authorship, and Presupposes the Bride as authority over its own self, rather than the High Priest and Husband that DOES hold authority... And no... Neither of you have any direct connection with Christ... Stop that. Nobody believes that except your own congregations... And Catholics and Orthodox both believe the other (in the extreme case) are uttering blasphemies... -Priesthoods are for organized, top-down structures with rigorous adherence to the men and the doctrines they espouse, rather than Scripture itself (which is why Sola Scriptura is important... You can't debate Scriptural truth, without Scripture... Its like having a sword fight without a sword). Even more so, its a very "AFTER THE FACT" tradition made by the Catholics and the Orthodox. While both differ in what is considered their church leadership, both mirror the same argument, in that they claim to have descended from the original Disciples and are of an "elite" class... Which is, honestly, hilarious to me. Because it proves to me you've missed the point entirely of Christ's own message and the subsequent perspectives of the Disciples, who made themselves impoverished and suffered for the Gospel, rather than wearing elaborate clothing and being praised by congregations and working in elaborately designed churches, from this Protestant, all things that seek esteem from men rather than God... Even the Sanhedrin sought these types of things consistently... -Liturgies (Ordnances) practiced by the Protestant Churches: Fellowship of Congregations (Acts 2:44-46), Observance of Ordnances (Baptism and Communion: Acts 2:41, 42, 46; 1 Cor. 11:23-32), Steadfast observance of the apostles' doctrine, the reading of the Word of God, and the teaching / preaching of the Word of God (Acts 2:42; 1 Timothy 4:13-16; 2 Timothy 4:2), Prayer and praise, with dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s direction (Acts 2:42,47; Acts 13:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:1-8; Ephesians 6:18), Evangelism and discipleship, with all members of the church using their spiritual gifts to serve Christ as part of the Body of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Timothy 4:5; Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:3-8). -Sacraments is, as opposed to ordnances, a series of prescribed rites and rituals that are "necessary" or "hinged upon" with regards to Grace... Honestly, if you have to add extra stuff to make yourself extra holy, you're doing it wrong already because the Father does not differentiate between whether you're baptized as an infant or baptized as an adult, because its not a necessary element of salvation, as the Book of Romans espouses with regards to Salvation itself. James does not profess a work based salvation, but a Fruit Filled Faith that edifies Salvation. AKA: He's not professing working closer to earn that Salvation... He's professing that we have been given Salvation freely, and thus, like the Parable of the Servants, need to be putting that Salvation to Kingdom work. HUGE difference... -I've yet to hear any individual Pastor deny the Pentecost. Sola Scriptura, remember, that means acknowledging Acts 2, brother. But the irony is that Pentecost is during the Feast of Weeks in Hebrew Tradition. Yet you don't celebrate "Easter" during the Passover Celebration... Nor do you celebrate the other Hebrew traditions that mirror Christ's potential long term ministry, like the Feast of Tabernacles, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Trumpets... So close, yet so far away... -If continuity is the question, then its an arbitrary question... Because of the fact that Protestantism was a separation from the Catholic Church. If anything, Orthodoxy is laying claim, when there's also the Armenian and Coptic Churches, that have both been around as long as, if not longer than, the Roman Orthodox and Roman Catholic governments... -Endless fracturing. While I agree, its also an arbitrary "gotcha" question because, ultimately, Catholicism and Orthodox was the first fracture after the death of Emperor Constantine... I have no animosity towards Catholic or Orthodox Christians... But its this kind of animosity towards us, where its essentially subtle brow beating, that makes me wonder if its more about reestablishing Monopolized Christendom, rather than Mere Christianity. Because you'll never find me bending knee to either. You'd have to kill me before I subordinate myself to groups of men who presume themselves righteous and holy by their denomination... Rather than because they have served Christ silently and without self-glorification. Just look at Mar Mari... Dude elevated to rock star status... Paul was hardly a rock star. Man was a rabble rouser and a thorn in every opponents' side... Simply because he spoke the truth... Not the "orthodox" truth... THE truth. Which was derived from the Scriptures, not man-made traditions.

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

perfect response brother👍 i like orthodoxy i think it has some great things and traditions it also has alot of things that arent expressly biblical i have no idea where jesus said" pray to the saints for intercession even tho im your high priest and intercedar" i also have no idea where he said "hey church yeah go ahead and throw me back on the cross even tho im not on it anymore also by the way worship my mother pray to her like shes god make idols of her so on"(thats for the Catholics)

[@SeekTheGoodInAll]

@@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings It's actually a terrible and ignorant response. The Protestant Church did not even exist until the 16th Century, therefore, it can not be the Church that Christ established.

[@SeekTheGoodInAll]

Mar Mari isnt even Eastern Orthodox lol...what

[@SeekTheGoodInAll]

Did you even listen to this video? No one is bashing you. But we are bashing your THEOLOGY and backwards 'church'. Your church did not exist until 500 years ago. If the Bible is so important, then why are you okay with the Reformers removing books from the Bible? The beliefs you hold, as a whole, are not what the Early Church believed. The Bible never says anything about Sola Scriptura. And it condemns Sola Fide.

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

@@SeekTheGoodInAll Who claimed it was the chruch jesus founded.😂 Protestantism has it own problems i disagree with idk why you attack me.

[@thomas.thomas]

Sola scriptura is not the same as node scriptura The first says that the bible is the highest authority and the only infallible one, other accounts can be valid as well, but if there are any conflicts - then the bible is the correct source The latter (node scriptura), would be to completely reject tradition and to only focus on the bible as the sole source I might be wrong since I only got this from Wikipedia - but there certainly is a difference

[@brianrich7828]

You’re responding to those who have a low view of Gods Word and therefore God. They, like the Roman Catholics, put man’s traditions, and therefore man very high and equal to God. And then there’s the fact that they kept the blatant idolatry and praying to corpses. Two very weird religions. Certainly not Biblical.

[@crimson6172]

Noting there is a difference doesn't solve the problem. Even if you put the bible as the highest authority, who will you assign to be the interpreter of it? We all know different Protestants interpret scripture differently. That is why there are a gazillion Protestant denominations.

[@brianrich7828]

@@crimson6172 I have a feeling that you’re erring on a couple of points. One is the reason for differing interpretations. If we are talking about the core Protestant groups then the differences they have are on church polarity and practical matters (which the Bible doesn’t give clear insight on) so those are peripheral and we all joke with eachother about those. As for denominations, the large majority of those within Protestantism are created due to churches going completely apostate due to the rise of theological liberalism, which is essentially an invasion of cultural politics and secularism. It’s basically an invasion by groups who reject most of the Bible, and they’re proud of that. So the faithful leave and start new denominations. If you are talking about the Independent/ separatist movement then you aren’t talking about denominations but independent churches. And most of those are from the 1900’s which is centuries after the Protestant Reformation and therefore are not Protestant by definition. And in those camps they have a choice of a mixture between only two theological frameworks (so it’s not that diverse) those being Arminianism and Calvinism. So it’s really not that diverse despite there being a bijillion movements due to the spread of Pentecostalism which is a offshoot of Methodism, which is also not Protestant since that started during the great awakening period well after the Reformation. There has always been fringe groups throughout Church History, even the Apostles dealt with some during their ministry. Next you’re conflating Sola Scriptura (Reformed Churches) with Solo Scriptura (Independent movement, Charismatic/ Pentecostal movement). Sola Scriptura is quite unified within interpretation of the core fundamentals, and may debate things that aren’t thoroughly addressed in the Bible. Even in the Catholic Church there exists the same thing, it’s not a monolith whatsoever.

[@crimson6172]

@@brianrich7828 It looks to me that you are just giving excuses for them separating and going their own way. I really don't buy it dude, if it is just about "church polarity and practical matters" is it a valid reason to split up and go their own way creating their own denomination? Nope. And yes, amongst the Catholic Church there are differences. And guess what, that is also the case with the Orthodox Churches. But they are still united unlike the Protestants.

[@brianrich7828]

@@crimson6172 Sounds to me like you did offer any evidence to the contrary and just wanted to reply to disagree. That exactly what has happened, and each of them are documented. The Roman Catholic Church isn’t unified, hence why there are three massive splits that occurred from that body as it became more and more apostate to where it’s not even Christian any more. Eastern Orthodox are closer, and Protestantism (The Reformed Churches from the Protestant Reformation) is different variants of Great. The independent churches run the gamut, the Enlightenment churches are wild. Protestant Churches are Churches that were created during the Protestant Reformation. I know Roman Catholics love adding every church that’s sprouted afterwards to the Protestant umbrella, like it’s a kill shot of a point. And that likely works in your bubble. Doesn’t really resonate with us however. We pretty much know what is what, that point doesn’t catch us off guard like we thing those are all Protestant, Catholics lump in weird cults as well. Protestant Churches are reformed catholicism, some have gone liberal due to regional politics and the rise of secularism and leftism. Instead of comprising, they leave and the left behind woke liberal anti Bible churches eventually die off (that’s what’s happening to the Mainlines since they went woke). And the solid new ones thrive. Now, the main concern of mine is the Pentecostal movement, although there are many solid Christians within that movement, there are many errant teachers in it. And it vies for the fastest growing religion on Earth currently. Some 800 million and counting right now. I’d prefer them over Islam of course, but still concerning in some areas. And no they aren’t Protestant denominations, they’re mostly Independents and separatists. The RCC has had some of this in their numbers lately as well. Get ready for that.

[@J.me.flip5]

When you get to heaven, you will not be asked what denomination you were. There are no denominations in the afterlife. All that matters is that you have accepted Christ as your saviour and tried your best to live life the way he wants us to

[@kiradripkage]

To a degree. God still commanded us to follow tradition of the church.

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

@@kiradripkage not necessarily

[@furieuxloup]

Orthodoxy isn't a denomination, but a communion of self-governing churches united in doctrine, worship, and sacraments, tracing their lineage to the Apostles through unbroken apostolic succession. Unlike denominations, which often emerge from reform movements or theological disputes, Orthodoxy represents the continuity of the ancient Christian Church, unaltered and unchanged, with a shared heritage and tradition that transcends individual church boundaries.

[@aguy2735]

I'm a southern baptist, and do agree with a lot of your points. I disagree with some as well on a fundamental level. However, you are still a brother in Christ, and God loves us both.

[@alicemoore2036]

Hear, Hear! Sometimes we Christians forget that.

[@raulmolina9212]

Same, I liked the criticism. But I don’t take it to heart 😂 same team, same victory 💪🏼

[@stefano403]

The problem is he doesn’t really believe you are his brother in Christ 😢

[@nemochuggles]

Except that Orthodox believe Protestants are damned…. The love isn’t both ways unfortunately

[@BogartBacall419]

@@stefano403exactly! Even worst, you’re anathema.

[@Bruhwthecomb]

Wow, the part where you mentioned why Protestants need to write books or the disagreement on how to interpret the Bible etc which is true, just hit me hard rn. I attend a reformed Baptist church and like you said Protestants surely know their Bible and are eager to spread the gospel but as of the last year or so I started looking into the church history and the early church fathers and it only helped strengthen my faith and help against any heresies or objections to Christianity. I been considering accepting the orthodox view lately but still need time to study more.

[@starstray4326]

I’m In the same boat dude. God bless

[@OrthodoxKyle]

You should get the book Rock & Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham. He used to be Protestant & wrote the book to give an Orthodox perspective on Reformers, I think you would enjoy it. Join the discord discord.com/invite/wtqDsy4eVs and we can answer your questions & visit an Orthodox Church orthodoxyinamerica.org/ God bless

[@Imperator-01]

Take your time, brothers, and ask the Spirit to guide you

[@user-tn1xv1vc2d]

Bruh, In your journey seeking true Christianity, you need to know that there are several Rites within Catholicism. And all are Catholic and true Christianity. I would strongly recommend to not only look at the Eastern Orthodox, but also the FSSP Latin Rite. You can also take a look at the Byzantine Rite which is also Orthodox and in Communion with Rome. I would recommend that you stay away from the Vatican ll Novus Ordo Mass Parishes which is Modernist Catholicism. I am a Traditional Catholic and attend the FSSP Latin Mass. Where it is the same Mass that has been said for 2000 years. You being an American should focus on the FSSP Latin Rite or the Byzantine Rite. Either one will lead you to Salvation of your Soul. You need to know that there is No Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. May The Lord Saturate Your Soul With The Holy Spirit🔥✝️🙏.

[@artemthetrain14]

Brother if that hit you hard, youve gotta work on your critical thinking skills.

[@sharpy9540]

I’m currently a Protestant in search of the true church, it’s bad here in America and my family is Protestant and I have relatives who are considered very knowledgable in Christianity within my family. They believe that the Pentecostal church is the true church, but when she was talking about it, I felt something was wrong. I’ve asked God to help me with this problem I’m having and I’ve been drawn to the Orthodox Church. I’ve talked a little about it and my family has talked down on the Church and it breaks my heart. I’m currently a Teen in America so I am gullible and believe a lot of stuff quickly, but my main goal in life is to do the will of my lord and I believe I need to find the True Church to be able to do that.Thank you for this video as it confirmed some of my suspicions.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Watch my video Best Orthodox Christian KZbinrs, check them out! they can answer also? Join discord: discord.com/invite/wtqDsy4eVs Come visit: orthodoxyinamerica.org/ reach out if you have questions!

[@user-yr9lt7dz8k]

The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints This proclamation was read by the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Church President Russell M. Nelson as part of his message at the 190th Annual General Conference, April 5, 2020, in Salt Lake City, Utah. We solemnly proclaim that God loves His children in every nation of the world. God the Father has given us the divine birth, the incomparable life, and the infinite atoning sacrifice of His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. By the power of the Father, Jesus rose again and gained the victory over death. He is our Savior, our Exemplar, and our Redeemer. Two hundred years ago, on a beautiful spring morning in 1820, young Joseph Smith, seeking to know which church to join, went into the woods to pray near his home in upstate New York, USA. He had questions regarding the salvation of his soul and trusted that God would direct him. In humility, we declare that in answer to his prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and inaugurated the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) as foretold in the Bible. In this vision, he learned that following the death of the original Apostles, Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the earth. Joseph would be instrumental in its return. We affirm that under the direction of the Father and the Son, heavenly messengers came to instruct Joseph and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ. The resurrected John the Baptist restored the authority to baptize by immersion for the remission of sins. Three of the original twelve Apostles-Peter, James, and John-restored the apostleship and keys of priesthood authority. Others came as well, including Elijah, who restored the authority to join families together forever in eternal relationships that transcend death. We further witness that Joseph Smith was given the gift and power of God to translate an ancient record: the Book of Mormon-Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Pages of this sacred text include an account of the personal ministry of Jesus Christ among people in the Western Hemisphere soon after His Resurrection. It teaches of life’s purpose and explains the doctrine of Christ, which is central to that purpose. As a companion scripture to the Bible, the Book of Mormon testifies that all human beings are sons and daughters of a loving Father in Heaven, that He has a divine plan for our lives, and that His Son, Jesus Christ, speaks today as well as in days of old. We declare that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized on April 6, 1830, is Christ’s New Testament Church restored. This Church is anchored in the perfect life of its chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ, and in His infinite Atonement and literal Resurrection. Jesus Christ has once again called Apostles and has given them priesthood authority. He invites all of us to come unto Him and His Church, to receive the Holy Ghost, the ordinances of salvation, and to gain enduring joy. Two hundred years have now elapsed since this Restoration was initiated by God the Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Millions throughout the world have embraced a knowledge of these prophesied events. We gladly declare that the promised Restoration goes forward through continuing revelation. The earth will never again be the same, as God will “gather together in one all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). With reverence and gratitude, we as His Apostles invite all to know-as we do-that the heavens are open. We affirm that God is making known His will for His beloved sons and daughters. We testify that those who prayerfully study the message of the Restoration and act in faith will be blessed to gain their own witness of its divinity and of its purpose to prepare the world for the promised Second Coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[@thomasbrodrecht6137]

@@user-yr9lt7dz8k It's not true man. This video is.

[@RobertBurroughs-mp9qz]

The LDS church was formed in reaction to the plethora of new protestant denominations and revivalists giving their new "prophecies" in the wave of"renewal" across the US and Britain. Joseph Smith, even tho possibly well-meaning, fell into this revivalism and not seeing authenticity in the dominant protestants, somehow came up with the idea of a Restoration of a " True church".

[@sukwarsiemanym]

Don't be led astray, friend. Read the Bible. Consistently. Everything you need is in there. You don't need man's interpretation of it. Pray that God will reveal the meaning to you and He will provide it.

[@ApolloLeRoux]

Another great video Kyle keeps the great videos incoming. Let's pray for one another to spread Orthodoxy to the entire world.

[@alicemoore2036]

Christianity

[@matthewgarvey8123]

Yeah forget about the Gospel, lets just spread orthodoxy on everything and make sure to get it in the corners too!

[@insanoibro6331]

I also think Protestantism is false but true at the same time. Idk Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem weird since I left Islam and got into Christianity it seemed as true Christianity was about people who had a personal relationship with Jesus and lived their lives hearing his voice imbedded in their consciousness. Hence making Jesus the Lord of your life.

[@rebaser6172]

It's interesting to me that "older" Protestant denominations critique "newer" Protestant denominations as too weird, unusual, crazy, &c. They are using tradition to dismiss these new denominations, but then don't apply that same standard to their own beliefs.

[@daneyraju8433]

Amen brother ...i was a Pentecostal but i went back the history and found eastern Orthodoxy....now on the path of eastern Orthodoxy...god bless

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Glory to God! Come visit: orthodoxyinamerica.org/

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5XRm6WLhtChedUsi=VT08p4P-HUlSz1uy

[@wintershreve2056]

I think you misunderstand the guy at about 2:30. He is actually arguing the church did not cease to exist, it just became corrupted to a point where when it was purified it appeared to break away from the roman catholic church

[@daithimcbuan5235]

Oriental & Eastern Orthodoxy have worked out the issue with Oriental Miaphysitism. The Orientals were just defining the word differently. The Oriental Orthodox churches are now working on reunification with the Eastern Orthodox.

[@science_is_fake_and_gay2710]

Miaphysism is not enough as it would suggest that after miaphysis, Christ didn't have a shares nature with the Holy Spirit and the Father because their nature is 100% Divine, but the nature of Christ is 100% Divine AND 100% human.

[@acekoala457]

The Monophysites should repent and return unto Christ. Severus is in Hell.

[@yenenehw]

@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 You don't know what we believe in. Our Miaphysite teaching is based on St. Cyril of Alexandria's formula “One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos." We say as a result of the unity of both natures, the Divine and the human, inside the Virgin's womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it. One Christ was born and we call the Virgin Mary "Theotokos" (The Mother of God). The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Logos". By "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. No change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature. Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well. To further explain Our Miaphysite teaching, I refer to St. Augustine and St. Cyril’s example: - The nature of the soul unites with the physical earthly nature of the body to form a union of one nature, which is the human nature. This united nature does not include the body alone nor the soul alone but both together are combined without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation. Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature? Although man is formed of these two natures, we never say that He is two, but one person. All man's acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul alone or to the body alone. Thus when we want to say that a certain individual ate, or became hungry, or slept, or felt pain, we do not say that it is his body which ate, or became hungry, or got tired or slept or felt pain. All man's acts are attributed to him as a whole and not only to his body. Similarly, all the acts of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not to His Divine nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone. For the unity of the Divine and human natures of Christ, it is an inseparable union as the Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye. The reasons we reject the council of Chalcedon (451AD) are:- (1) Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa had insulted St. Cyril of Alexandria by their deeds and writings and had supported Nestorius and his teaching, for which, they should have been characterized as heretics and excommunicated. But yet, they were accepted by your fathers and were present at the Council of Chalcedon without having renounced their Nestorian-like positions. (2) St. Dioscorus of Alexandria requested the removal of the two heretics (Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa) but his request was declined by the EOC fathers and for that reason, he refused to take no further part in Chalcedon. Later though, your Fifth Ecumenical Council (553AD), which was concerned especially with Theodoret of Cyrus’s and Ibas of Edessa’s Christology, condemned their Nestorian-like and anti-St. Cyril's writings. This fact indisputably confirms that St. Dioscorus was right in 451AD, but it took your fathers a millennium (102 years) to correct the errors of 451AD and finally excommunicate the two heretics. (3) Leo, the Bishop of Rome, stated in his famous Tome "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering" thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. The Council of Chalcedon accepted and voted for the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo. St. Dioscorus however, categorically rejected the Tome of Leo and had exclusively stayed faithful to St. Cyril's formula “One nature of God the Word incarnate”. Subsequent Ecumenical Councils of your church however amended the Tome of Leo removing Nestorian-like positions from it. This fact also indisputably confirms that St. Dioscorus was right. As evidenced below, your church considers we both proclaim the same faith - expressing the same faith in different terminology and formulation. (1) St. Dioscorus was considered Orthodox in his faith by the leading fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - such as Anatolius of Constantinople. (2) John of Damascus, expressed the Orthodoxy of the OOC when he said “on the basis of the Constitution of Chalcedon, to be separated from the Church… while being Orthodox in all other things”. (3) Dr. John Karmiris, one of the best-known and most respected systematic theologians of the Greek Church, a professor of dogmatic theology in the Theological Faculty at the University of Athens and later became the general director of religions and king’s councilor at the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece stated; “I have come to the conclusion that there is no real difference between the OOC and the EOC as far as the essence of the Christological dogma is concerned, there is a difference only regarding the terminology and formulation of this dogma”. Below are Church fathers, prior Chalcedon (451), who declared "One nature after the union". Their dogma is TOTALLY different from Leo's famous Tome championed by the Eastern Orthodox Church. (1) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the One crucified has been called the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore Him as one, without dividing Him into TWO after the union. (Letter 1) (2) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place OUT of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do NOT divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “One, incarnate nature of the Word.” (First Letter to Succensus 6.) (3) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and One is his NATURE since the Word has been made flesh. (Letter to EULOGIUS) (4) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is a single nature presented to our minds, THE INCARNATE NATURE OF THE WORD HIMSELF. (Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)). (5) St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. TWO names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. (Hymns on the nativity 25.5) (6) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life. . . . By the union of the two natures he is ONE ENTITY comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity he lacked nothing of the other, so that he did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. (On the trinity) (7) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are BLENDED into ONE, the Divinity taking on Humanity, the Humanity receiving Divinity. (Letter 101.5- 6, to Cledonius.) (8) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and He becomes. He was above time; He became subject to time. He was invisible; He becomes visible... What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He DID NOT become two, but He allowed himself to become a UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into a Divine being. the two natures coalesce into a UNIT; and there ARE NOT two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. (Oration 37.2.2) (9) St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath...that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady... He made it ONE with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. (Liturgy of St. Basil the great)

[@oliverqueen6077]

How come the Orthodox Church worships (venerates) icons (images) which is forbidden by God. Exodus 20: 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

[@shhhhhg]

Strawman, we don’t worship them

[@GrammarPoliceBot]

Loaded question

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

@@shhhhhg yes you do lmao what do you think the Israelite's were doing to the golden calf just fucking staring at it? no they were praying to it aka worship

[@melakrara5977]

i am an orthodox (from ethiopia) christian and after this video my faith in the orthodox religion really skyrocketed thanks!

[@tumslucks9781]

🌍🔙

[@ilonkastille2993]

How easy it is to influence people!

[@TruLuan]

The Orthodox aren't united. You can find a Catholic Church everywhere in the world, hence the word "Catholic" meaning "Universal". Orthodox are only heavily in the East. Sure there are other Orthodox Christians such as Ethiopia, but they have different beliefs too, another example of disunity amongst the Orthodox. The Catholics kept the hierarchy established By the early church and it's unity as Christ commanded: 1Corinthians 1:10 “I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.”

[@yenenehw]

The council of Chalcedon (451AD) is rejected by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church and the four Oriental Orthodox Churches (OOC), it is however accepted by both the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (EOC). Let me point briefly the reasons we reject Chalcedon. (1) Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa had insulted St. Cyril of Alexandria by their deeds and writings and had supported Nestorius and his teaching, for which, they should have been characterized as heretics and excommunicated. But yet, they were accepted by the EOC Fathers and were present at the Council of Chalcedon without having renounced their Nestorian-like positions. FYI - St. Cyril of Alexandria is venerated by both OOC and EOC, where as, Nestorius is considered a heretic by both OOC and EOC. (2) St. Dioscorus of Alexandria (OOC) requested the removal of the two heretics (Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa) from Chalcedon but his request was declined by the EOC. The EOC had supported the two heretics and for that reason, St. Dioscorus refused to take no further part in Chalcedon. Later though, the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the EOC (553AD), which was concerned especially with Theodoret of Cyrus’s and Ibas of Edessa’s Christology, condemned their Nestorian-like and anti-St. Cyril's writings. This fact indisputably confirms that St. Dioscorus (OOC) was right in 451AD, but it took the EOC fathers a millennium (102 years) to correct the errors of 451AD and excommunicate the two heretics (Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa) at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the EOC in 553AD. (3) Leo, the Bishop of Rome (EOC), stated in his famous Tome "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering" thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. The Council of Chalcedon (451AD) accepted and voted for the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo. St. Dioscorus (OOC) however, categorically rejected the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo and had exclusively stayed faithful to St. Cyril's formula “One nature of God the Word incarnate” («Μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη»). Subsequent Ecumenical Councils of the EOC however amended the Tome of Leo removing Nestorian-like positions from it. This fact also indisputably confirms that St. Dioscorus (OOC) was right from the get go. The EOC venerate St. Cyril but they refuse to exclusively stick with his teaching:- “One nature of God the Word incarnate” («Μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη»). As evidenced below, the EOC considers both OOC and EOC proclaim the same faith - expressing the same faith in different terminology and formulation. We're okay about it, because they do accept the unity of the two natures in Christ and also they stirred away from the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo and the heretics Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa. (1) St. Dioscorus (OOC) was considered Orthodox in his faith by the leading Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - such as Anatolius of Constantinople. (2) John of Damascus (an EOC Saint), expressed the Orthodoxy of the OOC when he said “on the basis of the Constitution of Chalcedon, to be separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church… while being Orthodox in all other things”. (3) Dr. John Karmiris, one of the best-known and most respected systematic theologians of the Greek Church (EOC), a professor of dogmatic theology in the Theological Faculty at the University of Athens and later became the general director of religions and king’s councilor at the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece (EOC) stated; “I have come to the conclusion that there is no real difference between the OOC and the EOC as far as the essence of the Christological dogma is concerned, there is a difference only regarding the terminology and formulation of this dogma”. OOC's Miaphysite teaching is based on St. Cyril of Alexandria's formula “One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos." We say as a result of the unity of both natures, the Divine and the human, inside the Virgin's womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it. One Christ was born and we call the Virgin Mary "Theotokos" (The Mother of God). The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Logos". By "one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature. Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well. To further explain OOC, I refer to St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Cyril’s example: - The nature of the soul unites with the physical earthly nature of the body to form a union of one nature, which is the human nature. This united nature does not include the body alone nor the soul alone but both together are combined without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation. No transmutation occurs of the soul into the body nor of the body into the soul, yet both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one nature and one person. Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature? EOC agree that the Human Nature contained before the unity two Natures: the soul and the body. They claim that there are two natures in Christ: a divine and a human, but they do not mention the two natures of manhood i.e. the soul and the body in Christ but they consider them one. Hence, if they accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do they not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature? When we accept the union of the soul and the body in one nature in Christ, and when we use the expression theologically, it becomes easier for us to use the expression “One Nature of Christ" or "One Nature of God, the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril taught us. Just as we say that the human nature is one nature consisting of two elements or natures, we can also say about the Incarnate Logos (Christ), that He is one entity of two elements or natures. If they say the Divine nature is different from the human nature, how then do they unite? The reply is that the nature of the soul is fundamentally different from the nature of the body, yet it is united with it in one nature, which is the human nature. Although man is formed of these two natures, we never say that He is two, but one person. All man's acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul alone or to the body alone. Thus when we want to say that a certain individual ate, or became hungry, or slept, or felt pain, we do not say that it is his body which ate, or became hungry, or got tired or slept or felt pain. All man's acts are attributed to him as a whole and not only to his body. Similarly, all the acts of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not to His Divine nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone. For the unity of the Divine and human natures of Christ, it is an inseparable union as the Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye.

[@yenenehw]

@@TruLuan The council of Chalcedon (451AD) is rejected by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church and the four Oriental Orthodox Churches (OOC), it is however accepted by both the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (EOC). On the other hand, the Immaculate Conception, the belief that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception is rejected by the EOC but is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church. The reasons we reject the council of Chalcedon (451AD) is:- (1) Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa had insulted St. Cyril of Alexandria by their deeds and writings and had supported Nestorius and his teaching, for which, they should have been characterized as heretics and excommunicated. But yet, they were accepted by your fathers and were present at the Council of Chalcedon without having renounced their Nestorian-like positions. FYI - St. Cyril of Alexandria is venerated in OOC, RCH and EOC, where as, Nestorius is considered a heretic in all churches. (2) St. Dioscorus of Alexandria (OOC) requested the removal of the two heretics (Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa) from Chalcedon but his request was declined by the EOC and RCC fathers. Your church fathers had supported the two heretics and for that reason, St. Dioscorus refused to take no further part in Chalcedon. Later though, your Fifth Ecumenical Council (553AD), which was concerned especially with Theodoret of Cyrus’s and Ibas of Edessa’s Christology, condemned their Nestorian-like and anti-St. Cyril's writings. This fact indisputably confirms that St. Dioscorus (OOC) was right in 451AD, but it took your fathers a millennium (102 years) to correct the errors of 451AD and finally excommunicate the two heretics (Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa). (3) Leo, the Bishop of Rome, stated in his famous Tome "Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering" thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. The Council of Chalcedon (451AD) accepted and voted for the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo. St. Dioscorus (OOC) however, categorically rejected the Nestorian-like Tome of Leo and had exclusively stayed faithful to St. Cyril's formula “One nature of God the Word incarnate” («Μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη»). Subsequent Ecumenical Councils of your church however amended the Tome of Leo removing Nestorian-like positions from it. This fact also indisputably confirms that St. Dioscorus (OOC) was right from the get go. You venerate St. Cyril but refuse to exclusively stick with his teaching:- “One nature of God the Word incarnate” («Μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη»). As evidenced below, your church considers that both OOC and RCC proclaim the same faith - expressing the same faith in different terminology and formulation. (1) St. Dioscorus (OOC) was considered Orthodox in his faith by the leading fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - such as Anatolius of Constantinople. (2) John of Damascus (a Saint in your church), expressed the Orthodoxy of the OOC when he said “on the basis of the Constitution of Chalcedon, to be separated from the Church… while being Orthodox in all other things”. (3) In the joint statements and agreements between the RCC and OOC (1973, 1984, 2007), the leaders of our two Churches expressed their common faith in Jesus Christ but without using the formulations that had been the source of disagreement in the past. Both churches assert that the disputes arose from differences in terminology and culture. Of course, the joint declarations did not heal all divisions such as while your recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, we reject the primacy of the Pope and emphasizes the conciliar nature of the Church (Synod). But the joint declaration were a real turning point. Below are Church fathers, prior Chalcedon (451), who declared "One nature after the union". Their dogma is TOTALLY different from Leo's famous Tome championed by the Roman Catholic Church. (1) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Because, therefore, He is truly God and King according to nature, and because the one crucified has been called the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8), how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God? Adore him as one, without dividing Him into two after the union. (Letter 1) (2) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - The flesh is flesh and not Godhead, even though it became the flesh of God. Similarly the Word is God and not flesh even if He made the flesh His very own in the economy. Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated, “one, incarnate nature of the Word.” (First Letter to Succensus 6.) (3) St. Cyril of Alexandria: - Let them take account of this. When one speaks of a union, one does not signify the concurrence of a single factor but surely of two or more that are different from one another in nature. So, if we talk of a union, we confess it to be between flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word; and those who speak of “two natures” understand it in this way. However, once we have confessed the union, the things that have been united are no longer separated from one another but are thereafter one Son; and One is his NATURE since the Word has been made flesh. (Letter to EULOGIUS) (4) St, Cyril of Alexandria: - Surely it is beyond dispute that the Only-Begotten, being by nature God became man by a genuine union, in a manner beyond explanation or understanding. For as soon as this union has taken place, there is a single nature presented to our minds, THE INCARNATE NATURE OF THE WORD HIMSELF. (Against Nestorius 2.(Preface)). (5) St. Ephrem the Syrian: - Blessed are you, O church, in whom even Isaiah rejoices in his prophecy: “Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a child” whose name is a great mystery, whose explanation was revealed in the church. TWO names were joined together and became ONE: “Emmanuel.” El is with you always, who joins you with his members. (Hymns on the nativity 25.5) (6) St. Hilary of Poitiers: - Anyone who fails to see Christ Jesus as at once truly God and truly human is blind to his own life. . . . By the union of the two natures he is ONE ENTITY comprising both natures; but in such a way that in either capacity he lacked nothing of the other, so that he did not cease to be God by being born as man or fail to be man by remaining God. (On the trinity) (7) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - To sum up the matter: there are two separate elements of which the Savior is composed (the invisible is not identical with the visible or the timeless with the temporal), but there are not two separate beings; emphatically not. Both elements are BLENDED into ONE, the divinity taking on humanity, the humanity receiving divinity. (Letter 101.5- 6, to Cledonius.) (8) St. Gregory of Nazianzus: - He was, and he becomes. He was above time; he became subject to time. He was invisible; he becomes visible. “He was in the beginning, and He was with God, and He was God.” “Was” is repeated three times, for emphasis. What He was, He laid aside; what He was not, He assumed. He DID NOT become two, but He allowed himself to become a UNITY composed of two elements. For that which assumed and that which was assumed combine into a divine being. the two natures coalesce into a UNIT; and there ARE NOT two sons, for we must make no mistake about the commixture of the natures. (Oration 37.2.2) (9) St. Basil the great: - Amen Amen Amen. I believe, I believe, and confess to the last breath.....that this is the life-giving Flesh that your only- begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our Lady, the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos, Saint Mary. He made it ONE with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. (Liturgy of St. Basil the great)

[@Procopius464]

This video actually makes me more skeptical of EO. The Bible is pretty clear on what you have to do to be saved (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-11). You're not saved by being in a church. There are atheists who go to church because they like the music or the social aspects. Salvation is a single event, which you must choose to enter into. No one is saved by accident, or by membership, or by sitting in a church. I think having traditions is good, but any doctrines and traditions have to be in line with the scripture, and not above it. Humans are fallible, God is not. If we don't have an infallible Bible then we have nothing, and are doomed. One thing I think EO does right is locking their worship practices and procedures into place. I agree that Calvinism is wrong, and silly. I also think that the music choices made by newer denominations is atrocious.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

"saved (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-11)" James 5:14-15 - Faith without works is dead What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. Matthew 7:21 - Faith plus Works Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. "by sitting in a church. " Matthew 16:17-18 - Gates of Hell will not overcome the Church Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 1 Timothy 3:15 - Visible Church Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Colossians 1:24 - The Church is Christ’s Body Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, The Church is the Ark... Please watch this video: kzbin.infozx3jNmuMTJA?si=Kh1Q7Ym6PUpDAfiS and these: twitter.com/OrthodoxKyle/status/1686579162071678976 will answer your questions visit a Church: orthodoxyinamerica.org/

[@felipecordero1018]

The will of the father is to believe on the son! Your works are filthy rags to God! The gospel isn’t about us it is about the glory of God who saves us. Jesus is the savior to all who believe!

[@toddthacker8258]

​@@OrthodoxKyle Orthodox and Catholics both miss what is happening in that James passage. It's literally saying that if you have true faith, change (i.e., good works, or better works than you were doing, or fruits of the Spirit) will follow. It's not saying that works save you; it's saying that works provide evidence of a salvation that has already occurred. Also, works will look a lot different for different Christians, many times depending on where they are starting from when they are saved. The will of the Father is that we believe in His Son and be saved. (John 6:40.) All Christians are in the church universal; God didn't limit us to one institution.

[@mattsell2361]

@@toddthacker8258very much agree I think Kyle is not understanding those verses. They are basically saying it’s not possible to have faith and be filled with the spirit and just sit on your couch. Having faith and knowing Jesus will make u want to do works. I think the idea of the one true church is dumb and flawed. A church can be corrupted because humans are running them and they can be bad. Look how many people have been hurt by churches. I always saw my faith is not in my church my faith is in Jesus. A church is just a way I can express my faith with others and if my pastor turns out to be bad then whatever I look for a new church that changes nothing with my faith

[@RockSeller01]

Where does Jesus say follow the traditions to come. Jesus does say follow his word. Carholics are so caught up in tradition but not what Christ has said. Your tradition were formed to make royalty happy.

[@johnnyd2383]

1 Corinthians 11, 1-2 (ASV) Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and HOLD FAST THE TRADITIONS, even AS I DELIVERED THEM TO YOU.

[@RockSeller01]

@johnnyd2383 the traditions he delivered not the church.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@RockSeller01 St. Paul was and still is part of the Church. Holy Tradition he delivered to the first parishes opened in the Mediterranean basin firstly, before spreading wider, continued holding onto his teachings as he clearly insisted in his letter to the church in Corinth. Here is another verse, where he addresses Church in Thessaloniki - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2, 15)... Traditions he taught are well and alive in our times as preserved in the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church.

[@RockSeller01]

@johnnyd2383 apostle and yeah he was taught the traditions of Jesus directly and he listed those in the Bible. You guys have traditions not of the bible but justify it by saying a Saint in the 15th century told us to do it.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@RockSeller01 How do you know he listed all Holy Traditions in the Bible.? Does the Bible says it.? Do you have verse or should I "believe" you.? Your last sentence is utter nonsense and I won't even comment on it.

[@we5ley_plays783]

I think Martin Luther and the other reformers did the right thing but they didn’t do it the right way. They cared about the Church getting away from the Church that God intended but they caused another problem in the process. The problem I’ve seen in history is that a departure from accountability causes the most problems. I grew up Protestant and we do anoint the sick in my tradition and I’ve even seen people with ailments(including myself) healed miraculously. I think what causes the most people to not open the idea of anything but Protestantism is a misunderstanding of what the other branches believe.

[@xxxfairyyxxx]

Agree 100 percent I have very similar experiences

[@brianrich7828]

The healing stuff isn’t Protestantism. That’s charismaticism. And yes, there’s a major difference.

[@Theophoruz]

It's more the lack of traditions because protestantism kind of failed to keep the ones that were actually around since the early church. Like the fact that the Church is a physical body, not an invisible one. So there is one true institution. The Bible also condemns any variations. Galatians 5:20 [20]Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies. Do you know what sedition is? Rebelling against actual authority, now the protestants were right to not listen to a false variation of the true church that did not keep the traditions. However, they shouldn't have gone against the orthodox church as well The Bible also states that we should be Catholic in this verse: Philippians 2:2 [2]Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. If you are not in the Church, that has kept the traditions as stated in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. You are not in the true church.

[@timothypeterson4781]

This entire video is a strawman.

[@johnhoma7145]

1 Corinthians 1:12 - Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.”

[@marias9362]

Just so you know, the Egyptian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox are not in Communion with the Russians, Greeks and Antiochians, Serbians and Romanians. The Orientals accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils. I cannot receive the Holy Eucharist from them. St.Maximos the Confessor suffered much in his fight against Monotheletism or one will of Christ which came from a belief of the one nature of Christ that the Orientals espouse. The Holy Fire in Jerusalem only comes to the Greek Orthodox, not the Orientals. For me this shows who God really affirms as the truth. Our youth director and other friends we know personally attest to this miracle at the Orthodox Paschal service every year in Jerusalem which has occurred since even the 4th century or around there. It does not burn for half an hour and comes from Heaven. Many thousands attend this service.

[@knez-bg]

Yes, the Orientals (Copts, Armenians) are different from the Eastern Orthodox (Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks, etc). The Orientals split from the Church in the 5th century, long before the East - West (Orthodox - Catholic) schism in 1054.

[@mattbaldwin8863]

Serious question here as someone who was raised in a non-denominational church. Why do all the different rituals and beliefs matter across denominations (as long as we agree on the foundational principles/lessons of Christ). Romans 14 has a very beautiful message about all of us followers of Christ doing things a little differently and how that shouldn’t come between us. Does anyone disagree that as long as us followers of Christ believe he was God himself in the flesh, came as a humble servant to die/resurrect for our sins, and follow him through faith (bearing good fruit) we will enter the gates of heaven? I guess I’m just having trouble understanding why the formalities of our worship have anything to do w/ salvation. The Bible is an incredibly complex composition of historical/God-inspired text and it doesn’t surprise me that there’s so many different factions w/ slightly different interpretations. Genuinely curious about Orthodoxy and Catholicism and why these differences in our style of worship and fellowship are so important as long as we have faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Love all of y’all and am open to any response to the above. ✌🏼

[@doesntmatter5640]

Im pretty much having the same thoughts as you and I also like to quote romans 14 lol. I feel like as long as the most important part is common between us then what does it matter if one person thinks Mary is the queen of heaven or not or whether the flesh and blood of christ is symbolic or not (just some examples). At the end of the day we believe God to be a Trinity, that Jesus died on the cross and rose again, and that we have to actually try to stay in the path of his light and ask for forgiveness when we stray from it(sin).

[@JackDemoraz-lq4rd]

Did you just complain that protestants focus too much on the atoning blood sacrifice of Christ? That's the only reason anyone's going to heaven, so yeah I'll focus on that above anything else

[@oliverqueen6077]

Amen, that's the only way we are saved. To God be All the glory

[@furieuxloup]

No, sorry. Faith alone is insufficient; it must be accompanied by action. Simply claiming to have faith without demonstrating it through our deeds is empty and inactive. True faith is revealed through our willingness to put it into practice, to show our trust in God through our actions. It's not just about believing; it's about living out that belief in tangible ways. Faith and works are not opposing forces, but interconnected aspects of a vibrant, authentic relationship with God. In essence, faith and works are two sides of the same coin, inseparable and interdependent.

[@JackDemoraz-lq4rd]

@@furieuxloup John 6:28-29 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Romans 4:2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about-but not before God. Romans 4:4-5 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

[@furieuxloup]

@JackDemoraz-lq4rd Those passages might seem to emphasize faith alone, but when considered in context, they actually support the idea that faith should be accompanied by works. Romans 11:6 is distinguishing between grace and works, not dismissing works altogether. Romans 4:2-3 and 4:4 are highlighting the difference between earning salvation (through works) and receiving it as a gift (through faith), but still emphasize the importance of actions. And John 6:27-29 is encouraging people to work for eternal food, which means living a life that reflects their faith. It's all about balance and understanding the context. Faith and works are not mutually exclusive but complementary aspects of a Christian life. The Bible teaches that faith and works are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. It's not either/or, but both/and. Faith is the foundation, the starting point, and the motivation for our actions. Works are the demonstration, the expression, and the fruit of our faith. The Bible presents a holistic view of salvation, where faith and works are two sides of the same coin. It's a false dichotomy to pit faith against works or vice versa. By combining faith and works, we experience a deeper, more authentic relationship with God, and our lives become a testament to His love and grace. So, yes, the Bible indeed supports the faith + works! ☺️

[@furieuxloup]

@JackDemoraz-lq4rd Those passages might seem to emphasize faith alone, but when considered in context, they actually support the idea that faith should be accompanied by works. Romans 11:6 is distinguishing between grace and works, not dismissing works altogether. Romans 4:2-3 and 4:4 are highlighting the difference between earning salvation (through works) and receiving it as a gift (through faith), but still emphasize the importance of actions. John 6:27-29 is encouraging people to work for eternal food, which means living a life that reflects their faith. It's all about balance and understanding the context. Faith and works are not mutually exclusive but complementary aspects of a full Christian life.

[@sieni221]

Alot of miss information nitpicking the most progressive denominations rather than actual luther's ideas.

[@ThumbKnuckle]

I'm a Lutheran because I saw these flaws in the protestant brand I was raised in, and really dug into what we mean with sola scriptura, that scripture determines what we can and can't do as a church, everything else is filled in by tradition. Thus I don't pray to saints and a few other things, but for the most part I try be in line with the historical church.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Where did Scripture come from? The Church & Holy Tradition! It needs to be read in context.,.. Watch this kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4OpgWePrZukjtk Lutheranism is not the historical Church??? it was invented in 1500s? how could it be?? it broke off Roman Catholicism / Papism (not the Church)... Catholicism is false... and broke off of Orthodox in 1054... Why not Orthodoxy?? IA GOOD book on this is rock & sand by Fr Josiah Trenham!

[@ThumbKnuckle]

@@OrthodoxKyle As much as I disagree with you on many matters as one who holds to the Lutheran confessions of faith and a member of the LCMS, I do enjoy your videos, even if this one ruffled my feathers. You should probably go more in depth on each sect and its distinctives if you want to change more minds as most protestants are trained to not have these objections sink in or to rationalize ways out of them. Many of these are taken similarly to atheist remarks such as "if good God why bad thing happen?" Which is nothing more than a cheap trick to us. Thankfully as a protestant in the oldest protestant sect I don't have to rationalize as much to cover my tracks against catholics, Muslims, etc, though me being a young earth creationist leaves me more vulnerable to atheists (so be it). I honestly think that smart people can have really good reasons to believe stupid things and I just don't hope I'm one of them. Atheism to both of us is paramount silliness, so I will unite with you on that front all the way, but as it comes with doctrinal disputes I will be looking forward to more conversations in the future as I must love my God with all my heart soul, mind and strength (literally very).

[@lkae4]

@@OrthodoxKyle Scripture came from God. Do you agree?

[@lkae4]

@@ThumbKnuckle GB. I don't debate too intensely with EO anymore after they and Jay Dyer acted worse than atheists the other day. Not saying all. Kyle seems pretty chill, others too. But there are a significant number of EO who have very, very serious spiritual issues and it's just accepted by other EO. This is sinful. So we must call them to be holy by their own standards before we even debate and evangelize to them. GB.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@ThumbKnuckle what I can tell .is that . the Lutherans are a poor man's Catholic... my aunt and uncle were Lutheran.. and from their church service I saw it to be pretty much the same as the Catholic service with less statues.. and less frilly.. well thats neither her nor there as I departed the Catholic church years ago for their lack of following scripture.. I am a happy Protestant now..

[@Infinite-07719]

1 Corinthians 1:12-15 [12]Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. [13]Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? [14]I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; [15]Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

[@oliverqueen6077]

I disagree with the Eastern Orthodox's teaching on salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that God is the initiator of our salvation and keeper. Christ told Nicodemus he had to be born from above of the Holy Spirit. Christ also told the father that of all He had given Him, He had lost none except the son of perdition (Judas Isacariot). If we could lose our salvation, that would mean we could frustrate God's work of salvation. It would mean Christ's death on the cross was not effectual for those that perish. It makes no sense that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient. John 1: 12-13 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Part of 1 Corinthians 10:22 Are we stronger than he?

[@johnnyd2383]

If you believe in already being saved, what stops you from lifting all 4 up in the air and doing perfectly nothing even though Lord's commandment in (Philippians 2, 12) "WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION with fear and trembling" says otherwise.?

[@oliverqueen6077]

@johnnyd2383 that's not what that verse means. And you haven't addressed all the other verses in the Bible that teach that salvation is solely of God. Or the commandment that teaches against making images and venerating them

[@johnnyd2383]

@@oliverqueen6077 I know all of the verses but Prots are always quoting only those that support their false doctrines while quietly skipping those like one I quoted. And of course you found an excuse as it would be too hurting to admit false doctrine on salvation you cherish.

[@oliverqueen6077]

@@johnnyd2383 you quote only one verse but discount the many against your position. And the one you quoted does not support your position. That's talking about our walk with God, as we live our our Christian life, being done in a reverential and holy way, as we work out that life given to us, here on earth. And you made no mention of the images/icons God commands us not to make : Exodus 20:4 - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

[@oliverqueen6077]

@@johnnyd2383 You've read the verses but don't know them, because if you had you would have understood. You have that one misunderstood verse you're using, to discount what God had said in all the others. Just like you discount what God says about making graven images: "EXODUS 20: 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

[@philipvainphilosopher2901]

Kyle: “Here’s what I like about Protestants” Also Kyle: *Proceeds to Rip Protestantism in pieces, rips it more, then drops refutations on the ripped rips…*

[@cameron4339]

Rips in terms of it's false doctorine,

[@datrickster8674]

That’s sayin something now isn’t it lol

[@SuperballsSupervidsOnYT]

Right, Paul only had faith and did zero works.

[@OrthodoxInquiry]

@@RobertLenz-uq9kiSaying we are saved by faith alone is pure cope. The only place that the concept appears in the Bible (book of James) explicitly condemns it.

[@benitoguarez2328]

​@@OrthodoxInquirythe passage in james seems to be saying that we demonstrate through our works that our faith is true, not quite talking about salvation, as opposed to say ephessians 2:8 : For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. john 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. or acts 16:31: And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

[@Heracleetus]

I'm kinda coming to these conclusions on my own, as an ex Catholic who's come back to Christ and been exploring protestantism. Been looking into traditional Catholicism and orthodoxy. Still struggling with the holy relic foot water though.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

We are made in the image of God, including our body. Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone. We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them. -St. John of Damascus Icons/ including relics / body etc. We are not worshipping matter, we are worshipping the GRACE of God in those Saints, through icons & their relics/bodies. This is covered in the 7th Ecumenical Council. Protestants are inconsistent because they accept the normative authority of the Church to give the cannon of the Bible & Nicene Creed (from 1st Ecumenical council @ Nicaea) but then ignore everything afterward like the 7th council! The Best thing you can do is try out an Orthodox Church near you: orthodoxyinamerica.org/ God Bless! Let me know if you have any questions!

[@OrthodoxKyle]

@@ramirodepalma7178 20:4 An Idol or image depics some god as having a form or shape, but the true God has no form or shape. Why therefore did Israel use images in their worship? Because these foreshadowed the incarnation of the Son of God, whom we worship both as God and Man. Also, Icons used in Church worship do not depict the divine nature. They drew attention the Incarnation. Jesus is the Icon of the Father.. so is Jesus an Idol?? no? Do you have pictures of people you love? Jesus? that you respect?? By your logic = you are committing idolatry... Please watch this video Why the Orthodox veneration of icons, Saints, and the Theotokos is not idolatry kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4OpgWePrZukjtk Idolatry to replace God without created, veneration is just showing respect for someone we love.... NO ONE HAD YOUR VIEW in the first 1500 years of Christianity.... and you ignore all the other protestant innovations.. Your Church did not exist until 500 years ago, its teaching HAVE NO BASIS in history... Please watch that video and look into Church history

[@OrthodoxKyle]

@@ramirodepalma7178 YES! this did use images in their worship??? You have no idea what idolatry even is. Can you explain? please. You don't follow God. you follow yourself. God established a Church, That Church gave us the Bible. You ignore the Church and want to follow your INTERPRATION of the Bible alone,,, you are your own God. I have provided you a video with a in depth explanation if you actually want to follow God. How can my religion be false? your religion was invented by men 500 years ago? which one of the 40,000 different protestant sects follow? they are all operating on Bible alone just like you... Notice in exodus how Moses worships Liturgically, incense, priesthood etc etc. Laying on the hands.. Does your Church have any of that? Orthodoxy does.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

@@ramirodepalma7178 Old Testament Tabernacle was an artistic masterpiece God instructed Moses to make two golden cherubim and to place these above the cover of the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:17-22)... God also instructed Moses to work the image of the cherubim into the outer curtains of the Tabernacle structure and into the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:1, 31-33). Thus, the priests that served in the Tabernacle saw images of the cherubim all around them - on the outer curtains surrounding the Tabernacle as well as on the inner curtain that shielded the Most Holy Place. Similar artistic details can be found in Solomon’s temple. For the Most Holy Place Solomon had two sculptured cherubim built (I Kings 6:23-28, II Chronicles 3:10-13) Cherubim were worked into the curtain that covered the entrance to the Most Holy Place (II Chronicles 3:14). Cherubim were also carved onto the two wooden doors for the entrance to the Most Holy Place and on the walls all around the temple (I Kings 6:31-35, 29-30). There you go I have disproven your whole false assumption. You have again, shown you have no idea what idolatry even is. It doesn't matter how many verses I show you because you are your own Pope, you follow yourself. Not God. You don't even know the definition of idolatry "God established ´plenty of churches. Jerusalem with the Apostles, Paul in Ephesus, with the Galatians, the Romans 7 Churches on Asia, etc " Christ established one Church. They were all in communion with each other? again you are showing you are ignorant of basic Church history. All it takes is a quick google search to see that East & West (all of those Churches) were united for first 1000 years of Christianity until the Great Schism When the Pope (The West) started changing the faith.. You have chosen to follow a cult leader, Steven Anderson. You don't follow God. You follow Steven Anderson. There is a whole video refuting his heretical theology. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGeaqod-bbR3aLc I have about 4 videos showing why the Catholic Church is not the true Church. Steven Anderson has no liturgy? incense? priesthood? funny how you ignore all of exodus & number which SPECIGICALLY go over liturgy? I thought you were all about Bible yet you ignore the entire old testament which talks about LITURGICAL worship. Are you trying to tell me that Jesus & all the Apostles were secretly Baptist?? like Steven Anderson??? seriously??

[@OrthodoxKyle]

@@ramirodepalma7178 it is clear that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. You are convinced that you are right. Study where the Bible came from (it didn't magically pop into existence). God bless

[@zzehyboy753]

You've misunderstood a couple of things, most severely the doctrine of the invisible church. Only the restorationists (e.g. Mormons, JWs, SDA) say there was a centuries-long blackout. The doctrine of the invisible church only rejects the idea that the sum of all the elect is contained within one, earthly, visible entity, saying instead that we're represented across earthly divisions - including the orthodox! Protestantism does not claim to be the revived church, it claims to be the purified church. There's never been a time in the West when the deuterocanon wasn't controversial. The earliest extant account of anyone talking about it at all is Origen arguing with Julius Africanus. With protestants, the shorter canon won, and with the one true churches, the longer canon won. It's not fair to say Luther just threw them out. Because, as you admit, the protestants are radically diverse, none of the rest of your generalisations is true of all of them. Beardman's view of the eucharist is common among protestants, but there are also plenty who affirm real presence. So, too, there are plenty of protestants who reject sola scriptura, either pointing to "prima scriptura" or just rejecting both. Kenneth Copeland is not a protestant, he's an Adam-worshipping straw man.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

"there was a centuries-long blackout" in Effect the Protestants do believe that because Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura was not taught in first 1500 years... "be the revived church, it claims to be the purified church." Church does not need to be purified ... It is the pillar and foundation of truth... Orthodox Church has always stayed true! Look into Orthodoxy! kzbin.info/aero/PL6eyVWFC0v8f7aOVmFtDRBBdTxpfO7k4w&si=CesYSBUc7kjuf90l Check out my other videos. God bless!

[@evanhunt8563]

It is foolish to believe that you can "debunk" Protestantism in a 15 minute youtube video. Greater minds than yours and mine have debated this topic for hundreds of years, and yet there are still protestants, and there are still catholics. Remember to remain humble when speaking about these topics. God bless you.

[@Konsekeris]

And there are still atheists muslims and all kinds of heretics

[@robinsteendam1311]

This is very special. Kyle, a former papist (roman-catholic) knows more about Orthodoxy, than the average Orthodox who was raised Orthodox. I must admit to be ashamed that many so called Orthodox are not enable to defend Orthodoxy and get so easily confused by Protestants and others, without being enable to profoundly defend Orthodoxy. I am ashamed and I have to admit that I as born Orthodox Christian have still a lot to learn. Maybe Westernizes are for some reason more rational and theoretically skilled and therefore enable to rational explain such matters. I must admit that I often, not always, but often get angry when I defend Orthodoxy against papist, protestants or Muslims. Kyle you possess the skills to educate people and you are not tempered, but calm and reasonable.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Thank you so much for this comment! it means a lot! I am glad to be Orthodox ☦ God Bless🙏

[@robinsteendam1311]

@@OrthodoxKyle Thank you for appreciating. I want also to tell you from my own experience, that it is not easy to maintain an Orthodox spiritual life. It is not easy to enter, but maintaining is also very difficult. The enemy identifies converts and practical Orthodox and has a special strategy to deceive them. So be prepared to fight against passions which will attack, like: anger, confusion, lust, pride. Not only through these passions will the enemy attack you. The enemy can also activate people who are in his power, to disturb you. You will feel sometimes also lonely like nobody understands you. Fight with prayer against this. The path is not wide, however small. I wish you great luck.

[@eleftheriosmas]

Brother it's ok, all we craddle Orthodox experience that. Although not being able to articulate precise enough answers frustates me a lot too, i also understand that it's ok to be baffled when facing for the first times hererical believes that are so out of our perspective. I mean come on, what an average Orthodox person could say to a Protestant who utters the words "God predestined people to hell" or "Praying to the Mother of God? NECROMAMCY". You don't even understand where they are coming from, what Gospel reference's extreme level of distortion could possibly lead to such ridiculous statements. It's like as you started arguing with a tin-foil hat person. It's only after time that we get to understand their (totally different than ours) faith that we can start thinking where each of their points turns astray from the correct Christian doctrine and thus respond accordingly. Westerners though because they were all their lifes in there, identify the roots of the differences naturally and thus immediately, for it's them finding these roots of the heresies of their formers faiths that led them back to the correct way of the Church.

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

St. John Bosco explains orthodox church : kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5XRm6WLhtChedUsi=VT08p4P-HUlSz1uy

[@ericutieful]

Luther did not remove 7 books, but he placed them at the back of the Bible as Apocrypha. He respected Scripture enough not to remove them. The removal happened in the 19th century when Protestant publishers just printed Bibles without them.

[@xxxfairyyxxx]

Really? Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it. (Luther’s Works 35, 362) The epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest…Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did. (Luther’s Works 34, 317) Doesn't seem respectful to me. The impression I got from reading about it was that his friend Melanchthon was the reverential one and tried reining him in.

[@ericutieful]

@@xxxfairyyxxx Agreed. Nonetheless he did not remove it so I guess he was afraid of changing the Bible. The deletion of these books happened very recently and most Protestants are unaware they were part of the Bible canon for 19 centuries. I'm Protestant but just got removed from a Calvinist page today for defending the deuterocanon..."Sola scriptura" people think they can pick and choose what is canon...go figure

[@AnthonyY55]

Even though we disagree one some key things when it comes to how church should be, and the role of scripture. I don’t believe we are worshiping a different God. I agree with you when you talk about those who say it’s all about faith because we know you can say you believe, but don’t display that you never truly believed. But the thing that is important to understand is that we are new creations once you are baptized by the Holy Spirit, and that is what causes you to do these good works as Ephesians talks about. God bless I’m looking into orthodoxy because I’m looking to learn more.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Great! God was very specific about how we should worship, In Liturgy with Priesthood: Orthodox still have that: orthodoxyinamerica.org/ Go visit and see for yourself is the best way! kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5OuYoWYpKh-ga8 The BEST book you can get is Rock & Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham, it explained the Protestant Reformers in depth. let me know if you have any questions! we also have a discord: discord.com/invite/wtqDsy4eVs God bless ☦☦

[@christian-q3v]

The accusations you have made against Protestants are subjective. For example, I am a member of the Ethiopian Mekane Yesus Church (Evangelical Lutheran Church), and we affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We also believe in the saving power of baptism and adhere to the confessional statements found in the Book of Concord, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Our worship is liturgical, and we have never denied Pentecost or claimed that the Church is only invisible. Therefore, I find your video to be merely provocative.

[@yz4b3lla]

i mean he also talked about the true church? protestantism has many separations and therefore it really can't be compared to other denominations. also, he talked about the church as a whole, it's not only our beliefs but the entire church.

[@Furinkazan541]

​@@yz4b3llaThanks for affirming the intellectual dishonesty. But I'm sure all the petty nationalistic schisms in no way undermines your point about division

[@FROGfish03]

Sola scriptura is not unbiblical, it can be found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. ”All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.“ the man of God is complete with the Bible alone, nothing else is necessary. If there are other infallible works by men inspired by the Holy Spirit than they too belong in the Bible, so put them there. The fact is we can appeal directly to the standard laid out by the apostles for what belongs in the Bible.

[@xpictos777]

Saying something is profitable is no where near the same as saying it is the ONLY authority. People like you convinently forget scriptures like 1 TImothy 3:15 which is clear about where authority resides.

[@stevied3400]

There is no point in Christ starting a church if scripture alone is enough. Sola scriptura is the most obvious of all heresies.

[@toddthacker8258]

@@xpictos777 Sola scriptura doesn't mean scripture is the ONLY authority. Even Protestants believe there are other sources of spiritual authority. Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE authority, and that we should be very hesitant to make truth claims not found in or directly derived from Scripture.

[@toddthacker8258]

@@stevied3400 Sola scriptura doesn't mean scripture is the ONLY authority. Even Protestants believe there are other sources of spiritual authority, such as church leadership. Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE authority, and that we should be very hesitant to make truth claims not found in or directly derived from Scripture.

[@jlingo6371]

Protestants just aren’t very good with basic logic. Sola Scriputura means only scripture. How do you know what is and isn’t canon? By using…scripture? How do you know what is and isn’t scripture? Because it’s canon? 😂

[@zachhiebert7926]

Became a stronger protestant after watching this video :)

[@johnnyd2383]

Childish... being stubborn is not a virtue tho.

[@zachhiebert7926]

Wasn't trying to be childish, just meant that he didn't address any points that haven't already been well countered by Protestants@@johnnyd2383

[@Furinkazan541]

​@@johnnyd2383Childish like making whatever the hell this video is? It literally just Strawmans Protestants for 15 minutes, lies about being pre medieval presumably because Kyle the autistic Orthobro doesn't know how dates work, and acts like he did something

[@javierpalos5035]

no one cares heretic.

[@tbarf]

So much of this is just your opinion of what you think Protestants believe being stated as fact. You’re interpreting things as you see fit to justify your own idea of what makes Protestants wrong. For instance, not a single Protestant I have ever talked has ever made the claim that Jesus’ death a was just a blood sacrifice. That is absurd. Every Protestant understands that the blood sacrifice was to bridge the broken relationship and fulfill the promise God made to Abram. Honestly only 4:21 into the video and I don’t see and proper claims backed up but anything other than opinions of how you think other people worship/have faith. Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that God, Jesus or any apostle, ever said that there could only be one “Church” as an organization/governing body. Their focus was on the individual churches growing in their local faith with God and Jesus. They didn’t dictate how every church should be run or have a clergy or any proper “order”. Just to grow in true faith with God.

[@tbarf]

The solar scriptura argument is wild on your part. Just flashing that slide up with 5 or 6 baseless claims is super good scholarship. None of the books or Christian life help you are attempting to claim as additional texts are doctrinal to anyone. They are contextual and social in nature, helping people who are in a different time than when the Bible was written experience the Bible in a more understandable and relatable way. They do hand out bibles, what kind of point is that? All true Protestants do believe the same, they believe at the core of all our faith is the fully man and fully God born into this world as Jesus lived a perfect life, as only he could, died as a sacrifice to for our salvation and the only true connection to God. Preaching is to help those who are not devoted to ministry as their job grow and understand the Bible more and gives opportunities for community and collective growth. Jehovahs witnesses are not Christian. I find it hard to find such significant differences between the actual denominations of Protestants. But I’d love to dive into that too. I would say this is more a personal belief but I doubt many people believe that it is just the Bible that determines faith or information. Protestantism is focusing on the individual relationship with God using the Bible as the greatest source for the journey. True faith creates experience with God that reveals his nature. But again that’s more my individual opinion.

[@tbarf]

Mormons are not Christian either, what?

[@calebklingerman7902]

Have you looked closely at confessional Lutherans? Not the modernist Lutherans, with female clergy and gay weddings, but conservative Lutherans, who hold to Scripture and their confessions (mainly the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in America). They are not just blind followers of Luther (the name Lutheran was originally given as a pejorative). He is obviously important as a reformer and theologian, but he was only one of the men who shaped the Lutheran confessions. Lutherans are liturgical, sacramental, creedal, patristic (study of church history is important), and have an apostolic priesthood (of course, Catholics and Orthodox may debate this). Sola Scriptura is perhaps an unfortunate name. It is not that Scripture should be the only authority, but that it is the supreme authority. The church can in fact err and abuse its authority, and the way to judge when that has happened and to correct it is by Scripture. Just curious, because they way you describe Orthodoxy as “orthodox, catholic, evangelical” is exactly how I would describe confessional Lutheranism.

[@Furinkazan541]

He obviously hasn't. This dude is strawman the Orthobro

[@davidmckelvey2601]

As a Protestant looking into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, you surely have given me a lot to think about. God bless you Kyle.

[@ayushbagg]

As a Catholic I found it's very helpful. ❤️‍🔥☦️🕊🇻🇦

[@VirginiaRican]

The list you display at the beginning of the video is why I'm non-denom protestant. All my brothers and i practice that list of items in one form or another. Growing up protestant, we gradually realized those things were missing so we as a group have our own version.

[@johnnyd2383]

You have elevated yourselves to the level of infallible Pope.!

[@VirginiaRican]

@@johnnyd2383 hahaha no. the Pope is an atheist.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@VirginiaRican Make sure you are not in same boots.

[@Furinkazan541]

​@@johnnyd2383Strawman

[@johnnyd2383]

@@Furinkazan541 That is how it is whether you like it or not.

[@GenX-Memories]

So did Indulgences absolve sin or not? I mean, that's what sparked Luther to start the ball rolling.

[@the-hedgeknight]

Catholicism bad ≠ Protestantism good Why did Luther have to reinvent the wheel when he could just go back to the non-papist church that already existed? Because it wasn't about papism. It was about him thinking his views to be above that of the church fathers and 1500 years of church tradition.

[@Furinkazan541]

​@@the-hedgeknightLack of access to communication, and you are trying to assume that EO is inherently true

[@Blinkybills]

The cannon of the Bible was long established by the early church Fathers before the various Latin and Orthodox councils of the 4th century. So you don't need to belong to the 'Orthodox church' too affirm that. The Protestant reformation for all its faults was simply an attempt to re-discover the historical 1st century Christian faith which had become muddied by centuries of tradition, liturgies and straight up heresies such as papal infallibility or corruptions such as indulgencies and offerings for the dead.

[@bigsully9945]

why does being a part of the true church matter? if you have faith in jesus christ but aren’t a part of the orthodox church does that mean you’re going to hell?

[@militaryfriends]

youre asking if non denominationals go to hell?

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

@@militaryfriends no hes questioning exactly what saying "the orthodox is the only true Church" means if thats the case anyone who follows christ as devoutly as possible will go to hell if they dont step inside a specific Church every fucking week its glorifying man above Jesus's sacrifice its entirely unbiblical Jesus never taught this so why believe it?

[@militaryfriends]

@@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings Well its not that you will go to hell but churches can lead you astray

[@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings]

@@militaryfriends again if Jesus didnt teach this why are you believing it is he not God in the flesh?

[@militaryfriends]

@@Jesus_is_THE_king_of_kings Thats not the point. The point is that other churches dont teach what Jesus taught. imo the catholic church teaches the pure truth

[@aiminghigh276]

As a Christian Russian, I'm currently held back by practices within orthodoxy such as venerating body parts of saints, praying to Mary to help save us (why if you can directly pray to God, no?), and because if I was on a lone island, no one to confess my sins to, what would I do? I also don't understand how icons can transmit energy, I don't know if that's truly how the apostles went about their church, including the *VERY* high veneration of Mary. I'm confused about biblical cannon too, maybe a video idea? Either way, your video was very interesting, and I enjoyed many a dank meme. By the way, what's the music towards the end, 13:24?

[@kingattila506]

Indeed, throughout scriptures, we see that salvation is based on faith. If you believe, you are saved, and must hold fast to that faith until the end of your days. Salvation is not based on what church you go to, what traditions you do, or anything else. Saved by Grace through faith alone. Also, the perpetual virginity of Mary isn’t biblical either. Church fathers aren’t infallible, only scripture is

[@aiminghigh276]

@@kingattila506 then again, the Bible wasn't compiled after some time after Jesus had ascended to Heaven, and many people can't/are unable to read to this day. If only we knew for sure what the apostles passed down, after all they wrote a lot of the scripture. Surely there is an answer in all this.

[@aiminghigh276]

@@kingattila506 what's more confusing is believing what is canon and what not, how come are we to trust Luther and the Reformists over whoever compiled the Bible almost 2000 years ago. This is crucial.

[@kingattila506]

@@aiminghigh276 From my understanding, by the time of 108 AD, the church already had 25/27 of the New Testament books, so that should mean that the writings of Apostles were in circulation and regarded as holy scripture before the canon of the entire Bible was finalized during the councils of all the church leaders. They had this criteria to determine what was inspired scripture and what wasn’t: 1)Apostolic Origin. attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first generation apostles (or their closest companies). 2) Universal Acceptance. acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean World (by the end of the fourth century) 3)Liturgical Use. 4)Consistent Message. Based on what I’ve learned about the Orthodox tradition, the use of icons and hymns was and is a practical strategy to teach the Gospel for those who could not read, a good idea in my opinion. Apocryphal books, like the book of a Enoch, while not inspired scripture, could still be considered important for other reasons. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ml67YoqnerOXqMU (A quick video about scripture canon)

[@aiminghigh276]

@@kingattila506 The reformists hold to the Hebrew canon which apparently was compiled around 100 AD (maybe what you're referring to). However the Septuagint includes all those books and more, and was apparantely the one quoted of in the New Testament. It was apparently compiled in 200 BC. Orthodox and Catholics, hold onto the latter (Septuagint) while Reformists to the Hebrew compilation. As a non-denominational Christian, the thought of considering the Greek old testament (Septuagint) as canon in my life makes my head spin, I'm not used to that, neither do I know if it's the right thing to do at the moment, but it seems like it's the older Christian canon (?). I also don't know which Jesus considered canon. Finding these things out now is very interesting.

[@danieltirsoreanu2152]

Kyle, you are saving souls and leading them to the Truth. Holy Orthodoxy: the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. May Christ and all the saints bless your ministry and efforts, bro.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Thank you so much (:

[@kevinclement1533]

Pardon me, but are you implying that protestants are not saved?

[@MossEYE-]

They do say that without hesitation. They say everyone is in heresy if not part of them and do not see heaven. At least that’s what they say in all other comment sections in other videos

[@toddthacker8258]

Except that only God, through Christ's sacrifice, saves souls.

[@furieuxloup]

​@@toddthacker8258And you're to serve God, not merely believe. You have to back your word up with action.

[@BarbarianTrader22]

I am a protestant. If you love the truth you will find it. If you love something else...

[@SeekTheGoodInAll]

get well soon

[@StandinFaithBro]

SALVATION IS NOT ABOUT A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAN AND DOCTRINES, CHURCHES, RELIGIONS, BUT A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAN AND JESUS-CHRIST ! -Martin Luther realised

[@uchennanwogu2142]

Jesus didn't create a church so you can leave it

[@Jo3K1ng3]

To believe in Christ is to be obedient to all his teachings and doctrine. That doesn’t mean you won’t fall short but Protestants objectively speaking are not going to heaven. Some might. But objectively speaking, you need the sacraments. That’s not even tradition that’s strictly scripture. Mark 16:16 (NIV): “Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” believing also requires obedience to the sacraments. John 6:53-54 (NIV): “Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’”

[@StandinFaithBro]

@@Jo3K1ng3 Protestants also keep these commands. Protestants get baptized, and they also keep the Holy Communion, as sign of they Faith and the Holy Spirit dwells in and among us. Also, I advise you to avoid objectively talking about who is going to heaven or not, only God knows !🙏 What is truly matter is if that person knows Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.

[@Jo3K1ng3]

@@StandinFaithBro 98% of Protestant do not keep holy communion and are unable to. Most likely if a Protestant church does do communion, they don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Anglican’s and Lutherans might.

[@Jo3K1ng3]

@@StandinFaithBro John 6:53-54 (NIV): “Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’”

[@Collidedatoms]

There's a TON of misrepresentations of sola scriptura in here. I lost count the number of times I said aloud "you're right because that's not what protestantism teaches."

[@Collidedatoms]

And sola fide. Sola fide is not that works are irrelevant. Sola fide is that actual faith that saves alone produces good works. The only way to reconcile Paul and James for you - without any evidence from the context of either passage - is to say that "works" in Paul are referring to "works of the law". But even that doesn't work because the conclusion of his premise that we are saved apart from works is that boasting is excluded. That's why being "saved by grace through faith" is "not of [ourselves], it is the gift of God". If it were only "apart from works [of the jewish law]" but not other good works, then we would still have something to boast about and some of salvation would be of ourselves. But if you let Paul exclude works, and read James with some critical thinking he's agreeing with Paul from the very next verse sentence after "apart from works lest any man should boast." - Eph 2:11 "For we are *God's* workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, for *good works* which God predestined us to walk in." We are not saved by the works themselves together with faith. We are saved only by faith - real faith - which alone saves us and inexorably causes us to do good works. That faith is not a mental assent either - James 2: "You believe in one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble." "What use is it my brothers if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that kind of faith save him?" - the reason he asks "can that kind of faith save him" is that there IS a kind of faith that saves: one that produces good works "show me your faith apart from works and I will show you my faith by my works." James believes real living faith saves and produces good works. Paul says the same thing. But this is where Orthodoxy and Catholicism go askew on the issue.

[@Collidedatoms]

There's a ton of debunked stuff in this video; stuff Protestants have addressed numerous times and even identical arguments to Roman Catholics that other Roman Catholics have told their fellow Catholics to stop using (like the 30,000 denominations nonsense). Mormonism is not premised on the same presuppositions. They claim an outside authority much like you do that supercedes the Bible. For you that authority is tradition and for them it's the book of mormon and living apostles. But Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all agree that revelation has ceased.

[@helligusvart2384]

Nice comment 👍

[@user-qh4dr1vy9d]

7:35 Sola Scriptura is about putting tradition to scrutiny through the bible, it's not simply rejecting tradition. Every so-called church has its own tradition and through the bible we can validate them.

[@brianrich7828]

Orthodox have a low view of the Bible and high view of men and their traditions. A low view of Gods Word. Anyone who won’t take Gods word over man’s, is certainly not anyone I’d follow.

[@rojcewiczj]

Is it the scripture that scrutinizes the tradition? Or is it you who scrutinizes the tradition using the scripture? Are you a tool for the scripture to scrutinize the tradition, or is the scripture a tool for you to scrutinize the tradition? Isn't you who are the ultimate authority in Sola Scriptura, using the scripture according to your own understanding in order to enact your own vision?

[@user-qh4dr1vy9d]

@@rojcewiczj the catholic church and the orthodox church have different traditions when it comes to divorce, marriage, unleavened bread, canon, church leadership, priesthood, afterlife. How are you going to discern between them without appealing to scripture?

[@user-qh4dr1vy9d]

tradition is not infallible, what is universally held by the church and is not found in scripture is most certainly handed down to us by the apostles. Yet, tradition can be added and can be corrupted. Jws have their own tradition that dates back to almost 2 centuries. Pentecostals have their own tradition as well. Both claim to reinstate/be true christianity, how true is that? We can't blindly follow tradition.

[@bexDZNS]

@@user-qh4dr1vy9d2 Thessalonians 2:15.

[@JacksonF08]

I was about to say something about the Schisms in the Orthodox Church, but you clarified it very well. Wonderful video!

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Come visit: orthodoxyinamerica.org/ God bless!

[@njamison1000]

But what if Orthodox "tradition" contradicts the 10 commandments that Jesus, as a Jew, would've followed? Such as the Orthodox belief in bowing down to icons of Mary. Yes, the reliance on the Bible does rely on a tradition. But it would be a tradition that doesn't change once settled. There is no evidence to suggest Jesus or the apostles were praying to Mary or any other dead saint so you must ask where some of these traditions comes from and the answer is Peganism. Greco-Roman traditions like statue worship were incorporated into Christianity when it spread to Rome so yes the tradition is old, but it is consistent with what is revealed through the Bible or even older than Jesus time in the flesh, the Torah? No.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

"rthodox belief in bowing down to icons of Mary. " No it doesn't Have you read the old testament?? veneration was always present lots of videos defending Icons: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJe0p5Jthsh2ocksi=_Zuu-Ier2cY8Gnik "But it would be a tradition that doesn't change once settled" what do you mean? Protestants use Orthodox tradition and Martin Luther REMOVEd 7 books from the Bible?? who gave him authrotiy to do that?? " apostles were praying to Mary or any other dead saint so you must ask where som" yes there is??? watch this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZuWe6iMoNqlr5Ysi=tAn4VWWbQUtJ2C0P " like statue worship" Orthodox don't have statues??? "what is revealed through the Bible" Christ gave us a Church... not a Bible Matthew 16:17-18 - Gates of Hell will not overcome the Church Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 1 Timothy 3:15 - Visible Church Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. watch my many other videos and read book Rock & Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham!

[@dakolev]

Commenting this after my 2nd time watching this video. The 1st time I was a non-denominational as i thought i didn't agree with any denomination. All these critiques did condemn me but i still wasn't convinced of Eastern Orthodoxy. Now it's my 2nd time watching (around 5 months after the first) and I converted to Confessional Lutheranism and am even less convinced that Eastern Orthodoxy is true. Point is, all of this is a valid critique of the modern contemporary evangelical but not of any historical protestant denomination. Also some of the things mentioned are strawmen such as the critique of Sola Scriptura. EO is very heretical and their claim of "perfect continuity" is false as they don't confess the theology of the church fathers that don't agree with their principles (e.g. Augustine).

[@XienRue]

I cannot finish the video. First thing, the claim that Protestant denies Pentecost is completely wrong. Also, what do you mean that Martin Luther and all those who support his cause should have go to Orthodox? Do you even know why the first schism that splint the church Roman Catholic and Orthodox ever happened? Also, the doctrine of predestination is completely biblical. And the scripture (Ephesians 2: 8-9) says: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. The reformation back then was absolutely needed to happen. The church had gone from the truth, with its indulgence doctrine (absolutely not biblical). And it was the Roman Catholic that ousted Martin Luther. I think we need to get this straight. I don't understand why Catholic always blame Protestant as if we are the one who left. Please get the history right.

[@OpieApproved]

Sola scriptura is biblical. 1 Corinthians 4:6. Acts 20:32. 2 Timothy 3:15. 2 Timothy 3:16. 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Galatians 1:8. 1 Timothy 6:3. Romans 1:16.

[@AndrewTheBibleTeacher]

I don’t believe you understand Protestant churches. I disagree with many of your claims.

[@gert-janbuth266]

@Kyle: I would like to briefly point out a common misconception about 'Sola Fide': this principle does not ignore or deny James 2. The basis can be found in Romans 9:32, Ephesians 2:9 and Galatians 2:16 (and the context of these verses). Compare these verses with James 2 and you can see that there are two kinds of works: one to build your own righteousness before God by trying to keep the Ten Commandments; the other as a result and proof of your faith in Jesus Christ (like in James 2). So, the Sola Fide is not unbiblical, as is claimed in this video. In many cases the 'works' had become the works of keeping the Ten Commandments again, not the works that come as a fruit of the faith. Sola Fide is meant as a warning against this misunderstanding of the role of our works for our salvatian. See also the discovery of Martin Luther about Romans 1, the righteous living by faith.

[@chadasonmcgraw8097]

Sola scriptura might not be directly in the Bible, but the very theme or notion that tradition or the church comes before scripture is absolutely unbiblical according to the themes of the Bible (giving birth to sola (or prima) scriptura). Jesus was VERY clear about the issues of tradition clouding the ability to see God. We love that you rival the many issues the Carholic Church has had as they started to fall away from God and into the shortcomings of a Pope acting like a King, but Eastern Orthodox still misses the point of Jesus's teachings in this regard. (This does not disqualify you for salvation, nor does this make your beliefs evil or bad. It's just a major disagreement, one that Jesus most definitely can overcome. I also want to notate that I have a deep resoect for Estern Orthodox that put their fairh in Jesus, so this is coming from a place of love, not hate.)

[@senpaidiodaddy3331]

The Pharisees had pride, he never said tradition would take you away from god, he gave us traditions like the Eucharist, and scripture becomes nothing without the church the church is who gave us the Bible we have today Martin Luther removed books from the Bible which in the video he literally says would take you to hell, Martin Luther died with a rosary in his hand, this video was so well put together I don’t see how you don’t understand that relationship is through religion look at all the desert assetics all the monks in monasteries they look like the most holy people you will ever see the saints in heaven are the greatest people to live if you don’t agree with tradition which formed the Bible, you should at least agree these men surely have god.

[@KadenGreen-eg1cz]

Odd calling Rome modernist and schismatic when y’all can’t even agree about whether converts need to be baptized, you’re softened on contraception, you guys haven’t held an ecumenical council in like a millennia, your own bishops don’t call the Filioque a heresy anymore, even father Josiah Trenham has alluded to this, you’ve got the Moscow Constantinople schism, one of your people ordained a woman not that long ago, and you don’t even evangelize, I have never ever seen a single number EO member go out and try to bring people in.

[@Headroomtalking]

1) How do you determine the Canon of the Bible? Protestants use a canonical bible 😂 2) "they have no priesthood." "You are living stones, a holy priesthood." The bible gives Pastors elders deacons and overseers are delegated power which follows the biblical model of ministry gifts not the old testament priesthood. "And God gave some apostles, teachers, prophets, evangelists etc. 3) sacraments practiced in protestant churches: communion (the eucharist) baptism by immersion, laying on of hands (receiving the holy spirit which is the 2nd baptism of fire) furthermore, some still practice fasts and other celebrations from Judaism. Pastors anoint the sick and anoint "priests" 😂😂 4) PENTECOST IS THE BACKBONE OF PROTESTANT THEOLOGY- WE WOULDNT HAVE THE LIVING SPIRIT OF GOD IN US NOR BE SAVED WITHOUT THE CROSS AND ACTS 😂😂 which solves part of your first claim "you have the holy spirit in you so you don't need anyone to teach you." (Timothy) "Verily I say to you lest you be born again you shall not see the kingdom of heaven." Born of water AND SPIRIT So in 1 minute I see you don't know orthodoxy and Protestantism are literally the same It's just an attitude of condemnation from one to the other by lack of knowledge...Im out Shameless plug? Talking Head Room on twitter I teach Theology for free Follow me and I will make you fishers of the scriptures for yourselves (I'm non-denom, working on. Masters degree) Have fun guys 😂

[@SeekTheGoodInAll]

no one wants to be taught theology from a Protestant lol. Please stop teaching false things.

[@HonorWithSacrifice8070]

The amount of conflation and misinformation in this video is honestly horrifying. I wish I could speak to you so that you can back up all the stuff you are saying, but usually when a friendly hand is lent out it’s slapped away by the dogmatic.

[@oskajohn3795]

To all Christians, put your faith in Christ our Lord….we are all One in the body of christ 😊

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Christ gave us a Church! look into Orthodoxy kzbin.info/aero/PL6eyVWFC0v8f7aOVmFtDRBBdTxpfO7k4w&si=l_DWdzuNmrNcfYi1 God bless!

[@LilTism-co9yz]

The cannon of the Bible is that it’s from God silly goose

[@SeekTheGoodInAll]

ahahahaha what? so God gave us the Biblical Canon? how ahahah

[@J.T.Stillwell3]

You complain about Protestant churches when your own church is a mess. I just went to a Greek Orthodox Church today, where the guy running the candles and prayer service admitted that he believed that God was invented by man to control people, and that only the OT condemns homosexuality and when I brought Romans he had no retort.

[@acekoala457]

Wow there's nominal people within Orthodoxy. Who could have known? Nominalism is a problem everybody is dealing with right now. Protestantism isn't immune as it is born of Nominalism.

[@TheSignofJonah777]

So Gods words can’t validate themselves? You immediately dismiss his claims to a place outside of where he has talked.

[@nsbomb]

Brother, I understand that you stand behind the Orthodox stream of Christianity, but it's not right to strawman Protestantism. It's obvious that you have no single clue of actual Protestant Christianity. Repent from attacking your brothers and possibly the work of the Holy Ghost of God and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and trust in the Holy Ghost for guidance. Love the LORD your GOD with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your brothers as Jesus loves you. Peace to you and your household brother!

[@countryboyred]

I politely disagree. Kyle has a very solid grasp of the general Protestant position. I say this as a person who was a Protestant for over 30 years. Humble yourself and ask God in prayer. Do you really think the Church was hidden from the world for over 1500 years until people like Luther and Calvin came along? Peace be with you.

[@nsbomb]

@@countryboyred Thank you for your reply Randy. Why do you say, "Humble yourself"? What about my writing is offending you? Your question reveals that there is a serious misunderstanding of "what" Christianity is concerning Protestantism. You do realize that the strawman version of Protestant Christianity is not actually Protestant Christianity, do you? Brother seeing that you think this version of Protestant Christianity that Kyle sketches is Protestant Christianity, really makes me wonder what “Protestant Church” you have been a part of? Could you maybe share more with me about your experience as a “Protestant Christian” and what church you attended? Thank you and peace to you brother!

[@countryboyred]

@@nsbomb nothing you said offended me at all, I’m not sure why you took it that way. I said humble yourself and pray because that’s what we should all do, when we seek truth we should be humble. Part of the stumbling block in finding the truth is not being able to admit when we are incorrect about something (ie pride or lack of humility). I was a Methodist and then non-denominational for 30 years. I also attended reformed and Baptist services over the years and have read countless books and listened to 1000s of hours worth of sermons from a vast array of preachers all across the Protestant spectrum. I disagree with your assertion that Kyle is straw manning the Protestant position. He pretty much nails it in my opinion. Although admittedly is difficult to pin down exactly what “Protestants” believe because it depends on which one of the 20,000 denominations you are talking about. That’s why I said “general Protestant position” as in most Baptist, Methodists, etc. I also disagree with your assertion that I have a misunderstanding of what Christianity is. I have researched these matters of faith in depth for my entire life. So that assertion is actually quite laughable. I don’t claim to be an expert or a theologian but I have some amount of knowledge on the subject or else I wouldn’t bother commenting back to you.

[@countryboyred]

@@nsbomb Also you never answered my question about Luther or Calvin. What do you believe about the early Church? Do you think that all of the theology and tradition was incorrect until the reformation? I’m not trying to attack you, I’m just asking questions. What are your views on apostolic succession? How do you think the Bible was compiled? These are all deep questions that I would encourage everyone to pray about and research.

[@nsbomb]

@@countryboyred Hi Randy, thanks for getting back to me. Concerning the straw manning of the Protestant position, we disagree and I’m going to leave it at that. There is no fruit in arguing over opinions. Thank you for sharing about your experience with the protestant churches, and you are right in saying that it’s “admittedly difficult to pin down exactly what “Protestants” believe because it depends on which one of the 20,000 denominations you are talking about.”. I’m attending a protestant church at this moment in life, an evangelical church. I have come to the conclusion that neither Protestantism, nor Catholicism nor Orthodoxy is the “right one”. All streams have their flaws, but all are still one for the body is still of Christ Jesus. My assertion of your misunderstanding of Protestant Christianity was based on your agreement with Kyle about his strawman version of it. But as I have written, there is no fruit in arguing over opinions. To answer your further questions; Q: What do you believe about the early Church? A: I believe the early Church was guided by the Apostles and the Holy Ghost. The writing we have in the New Testament are the perfect description and prescription for the church of Christ Jesus. With this, I accept the authority that the early Church has. When the apostles had established the Church of Christ Jesus, the Holy Ghost appointed overseers; Acts 20:28-31 / 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.[b] 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. / As Paul said, savage wolves will come and distort the truth. This is what happened from then on and all kinds of human additions were added to tradition and the religion. This has eventually formed into Catholicism and Orthodoxy (although Orthodoxy is the closest thing to the early Church in my opinion). Catholicism has swayed to practically a new religion with Christianity only as its core to hold things together. Q: Do you think that all of the theology and tradition was incorrect until the reformation? A: No, but I think much false manmade teaching has been added (for example the papacy) in the period from the death of the Apostles until the reformation. The Orthodox church separated herself from Rome due to this issue (if I’m not mistaking). I believe Luther never intended to “split” the body of Christ, but only intended to challenge the Catholic church on their manmade teachings that go against the will of God as we know it. I personally think it’s sad that the body of Christ is in disunity, but I myself could never be Catholic due to so many false teachings that the Catholic church upholds as truth. For example, I could never accept that the pope as my “Holy Father” because that is GOD’s title and role. To sum up; the Christian theology has been formed over many hundreds of years and had formed many strange teachings. Due to this reason, it needed to be “cleaned up”, reformed. And maybe, yes, the Protestant movement “cleaned up” too much. I don’t know anything about Calvin, I’ve never been a Calvinist. Q: What are your views on apostolic succession? A: I believe that which is stated in Acts 20:28 / 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. / I don’t think that Peter was made the first pope, I believe the church of Christ Jesus is built upon the foundation that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, not on a human, Peter the Apostle. I do think that the Apostles, by inspiration from the Holy Ghost, choose and appointed brothers as overseers. Furthermore I know that all who are in Christ Jesus are a holy priesthood, 1 Peter 2:4-5: 4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Q: How do you think the Bible was compiled A: It was written during the first century, between 50-100 CE. The 27 books of the New testament were canonized in the council of Hippo in year 393. We can say with some certainty that the first widespread edition of the Bible was compiled by St. Jerome around A.D. 400. I believe this was all done under the guidance from the Holy Ghost. The things I don’t understand, how can there be so much new tradition from the 2nd to 4th century and none of it is found in the Bible itself that was written in the first century? This implies to me that these traditions were added after the 1st century and thus are manmade additions to the faith. Maybe you can help me to understand that.

[@SethYoderMusic]

6:06 Hey brother, you took both of those verses way outta context. Those verses do not defend the use of a priesthood system such as the RCC uses. The writer is using priestly examples from the law to make other points which have nothing to do with whether or not there should still be priests. Jesus is our final High Priest. Also, on the Eucharist. You used verses where Jesus says that his flesh IS the bread of life. Jesus also said He is the door. Should we take that literally too?

[@navsquid32]

Disciples abandoned him over his shocking teaching on the Eucharist in John 6, and he didn’t correct them. That’s because there was nothing to correct. They interpreted it correctly. Other places where the disciples misunderstand Christ, he provides correction. The Eucharist becomes even more clear if you look in the original Greek. He uses “sarka ,” which is a biological term, when speaking about the Eucharist and his flesh. Compare this to “the flesh is of no avail,” where he uses “sarx,” which carries “human nature” as its meaning. You’re making a common low-effort Protestant trope which is to say “he isn’t speaking literally here, because he doesn’t always speak literally.” Total nonsequitur.

[@SethYoderMusic]

@navsquid32 if you’re going to take all Jesus words at literal face value, then you also have to believe that he is a literal door, a literal shepherd with sheep, and an actual cornerstone, and you should also be hating your family. And Jesus does sometimes speak in figurative, or at least with obscure, metaphors, because he told the Pharisees, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.“ He was talking about his body, not the actual temple.

[@colbyentzminger217]

Good video. I consider myself protestant/Pentecostal due to tradition, however I think there’s much to be learned from each tradition. I certainly can tell there is a draw in our culture to return to liturgy, tradition, and structure as you have mentioned. I don’t agree with Martin Luther on many things, and in my school they bring in theologians past from a number of traditions. I truly do wonder what our Lord thinks of all the in-fighting among denominations. I harbor no resentment to my fellow believers in the other denominations. Always it seems there will be Christians who hold different cultural values, such as the tension between Jewish Believers and Gentile believers in Romans. Thank you for sharing what you have learned. God bless.

[@brandonscorner9184]

I disagree with Catholicism because the idea of saints and Mary being flawless and able to pray for me. Doesn’t sit right, Jesus died for my sins and lives in my heart. I don’t need and shouldn’t need a middle man to intercede on that. Orthodoxy too, can’t by into the need of a priest to intercede for me. Praying through an icon too, seems strange. Jesus again is inside my heart, I don’t need an icon.

[@SeekTheGoodInAll]

okay then dont ever ask your friends, family, pastor, or church members to ever pray for you since you dont need a "middle man". That is unbiblical. The bible literally tells us to pray for other people and ask for their prayers. So if you dont want to ask people to pray for you, fine, but just know youre being unbiblical.

[@blorghy1629]

No Protestant is saying that we are reviving the church we are simply trying to provide the correct theology and yes we believe in sola scriptora because the living testament of god will always be more important than anything else the church has said. And I do not understand why you exaggerating by saying Protestants have ENDLESS FRACTURING when we believe in about ninety nine percent of the same things. Finally, I could never be orthodox or catholic because of the open and blatant worship of icons when it is directly forbidden in the Bible. I am sorry if I sound harsh, but I just hope you stop misleading people into hating Protestantism.

[@vopner]

Dude every video you make gets better and better. You're my new favorite youtuber. God bless! ☦

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Wow haha, that means a lot, thank you!!

[@vopner]

@@OrthodoxKyle the format is perfect for getting a super detailed overview, and then I'm free to go research topics more fully. keep up the good work

[@PTS-Maid]

Praying to "saints" and "mary" is not something I will ever consider doing. I will only pray to God and God only.

[@Drummavirus]

No king but Christ. 🙌

[@Jo3K1ng3]

John 6:53-54 (NIV): “Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’” You need the sacraments to go to heaven…

[@toddthacker8258]

@@Jo3K1ng3 Seems to me that the verses you quoted are talking metaphorically about faith in Christ . . . unless you believe that participation in the Eucharist is the sole determination of whether someone is saved, which you would have to if you took the words super-literally.

[@Jo3K1ng3]

@@toddthacker8258 that makes no sense, cause why would he say in the last supper the same exact thing as he holds up the bread and wine. It’s not the sole determination, stop trying to twist my words… but if you don’t receive it, you’re objectively speaking not going to heaven You need the sacraments to be saved.

[@toddthacker8258]

@ItsJu5tJordy What I'm saying is that if you are saying you have take the words literally, you have to take them literally. One you start interpreting what he REALLY meant you lose your ability to appeal to the "that's just what he said" argument. Remember that John 6 took place well before the Last Supper, so the idea that Christ meant the Eucharist here when no one anywhere knew what that was seems a bit like hiding the ball. Jesus himself says that: “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven." (Matt. 10:32.) “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” (John 3:36.) Although sacraments are important, they aren't necessary for salvation. HOW can our failure to perform a work impede God's plenary grace?

[@keltonschleyer6367]

You’d consider me a Protestant and I agree with 90% of your arguments here. You’ve summarized the bad-faith parts of Protestantism but also agreed with the good-faith argument of “Let’s get back to basics.” If you want to reach Protestants, this is likely your best bet. The Protestant traditions have done some wacky things, but I believe the underlying current is mostly two-fold: 1) humans complicate things over time and drift towards tyranny, so religious “authorities” should be scrutinized heavily to keep them in check; 2) to prevent corruption, the Bible should be the final and limiting authority on doctrine. The first point comes from Protestantism’s history of leaving the evolving traditions of Catholicism, while the second is the preventative measure to keep that abuse from happening again. Ironically, “Bible first” has drifted into “Bible only with no responsible study,” and the healthy discipline of Bible study using exegesis and church history has easily fallen by the wayside in favor of “whatever research I decide to do.” Anyway, blessings to the family of believers, and prayers for Jesus finding that lost sheep, whoever that happens to be 😊

[@OrthodoxKyle]

Have you considered Orthodoxy? I agree that authorities sometimes need to be put in check BUT this does not mean schism / leaving the Church? If you want Ancient unchanged Christianity = you will find it in the Orthodox Church. Is there any reasons you don't like Orthodoxy or would you be open to trying a liturgy? orthodoxyinamerica.org/

[@keltonschleyer6367]

@@OrthodoxKyle Wow, this was a quick response for such an old video - that says a lot on KZbin haha. I'm open to examining it more, definitely. I'll check out the link you've posted, thanks! EDIT: No, I agree that one should not leave/divide the church over all disagreements/concerns - it's definitely a relationship that should be navigated and not immediately abandoned (Hebrews 13:17ff). There is room for mutual edification and correction (Acts 18:24-28; Ephesians 4:11-16).

[@OrthodoxKyle]

@@keltonschleyer6367 Great! lmk if you try out a liturgy. It is worshipping like the early Christians. Very reverent & liturgical! and the Church normally has lunch / coffee after where you can meet people & talk to priest. God Bless ☦☦

[@timothymcbrayer3069]

@OrthodoxKyle Orthodoxy seems to be bent towards Idolatry. I'm still learning, this isn't meant as disrespect.

[@acekoala457]

​@@timothymcbrayer3069 "Idolatry" in the ANE had a very specific connotation. Not the broader concept that Christians have taken up since Christ's Ascension. It was an inversion of the order of Creation, man would create gods and breathe "life" into them, this inverted reality where God Created Man and Breathed Life into him. The worship given these Idols was undue and improper as they were created. This is why Arianism is wrong because Christ is Uncreated. As the Broader concept anything **Can** be an Idol, Protestantism becomes an Idolatry of the Mind and self eventually as one has the singular right to interpret Scripture. Icons are not in and of themselves Idols, the 7th Ecumenical Council says that Latria(Worship) given to Icons is Idolatry, while Honor given to Icons of Christ and His Saints, in whom God is Glorified according to Scripture, for by honoring the Image of Christ we Honor Christ Himself and therefore the Father. In the same way we kiss each other to honor God's Image in Each Other.

[@g.a7885]

I have a question: in the book of corinthians in the bible? it is said that men are NOT supposed to cover their heads while praying, but why do the orthodox bishops do it? And other than the bible, what books have autorithy if there is anything besides the bible? And wich book has more autority at the end if the bible and the book contradict each other?

[@Defectivegg]

What you see today with Catholic and Orthodox church, you can see in the gospels where Jesus confronts the Pharisee about how their traditions and laws corrupted the Old Testament. Catholic isn't any good anymore, but Orthodox is also questionable because they also pray to saints and kiss the pictures of saints or Jesus, which falls under idolatry since we don't know what Jesus looked like.

[@Jo3K1ng3]

Don’t listen to the defective guy ^ haha. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for picking tradition OVER the commandments. Catholics and Orthodox Christian’s don’t do that. Tradition is good. 2 Thessalonians 2:14 backs that up. It’s when you pick tradition over the commandments that it is wrong. I’d advise to be careful of people like the comment above… If you have objections to the Catholic/orthodox faith, be patient, pray for an answer, and throughly seek it out. Through videos, catechism, priests etc. People will try to instill doubt in you especially at the very beginning. Just be patient. Your flesh will also want to object to things, but when you’re patient, you will start to see the truth more. I’m speaking from experience. I was Protestant. Now I go to the traditional Latin mass. I still have questions but as I’m patient they get answered. Our flesh wants to jump to conclusions so fast. Haha

[@Jo3K1ng3]

You refer to disciplinary guidelines that St. Paul conveys in 1 Corinthians 11, and specifically regarding men praying without covered head in 11:4, 7. Because they are disciplines, they are changeable, as opposed to unchangeable doctrines. Jesus Christ gave his Church power to prudentially bind and loose regarding changeable disciplines (Matt. 18:18-19; 18:15-18), and so the Church no longer requires women to wear veils or head coverings at Mass, although they are certainly welcome to do so. In addition, while St. Paul directs men not to have long hair (1 Cor. 11:14)-apparently related to disorders in Corinth, including sexual ones-it was not something God set in stone as a doctrine. Indeed, in Numbers 6:1-21, we read about the Nazarite vow some men took, in which they wouldn’t cut their hair for a period of time. Samson took such a vow-and a lifelong one at that (Judges 13:5). The vow also included abstaining from wine or strong drink (Judges 13:4), which indicates that St. John the Baptist took a similar Nazarite vow (Luke 1:13-15). Similarly, it’s a changeable discipline re: the covering of a man’s head for prayer, and a practical matter if praying outside in the cold. And St. Paul makes clear he’s speaking about practice or custom in 1 Corinthians 11:16, which are changeable, not an unchangeable doctrinal matter. And yet the Pope and other bishops actually maintain this time-honored discipline during the Liturgy of the Eucharist at Mass, when the Pope (and other bishops) remove both his miter (liturgical headdress) and zucchetto, which is a small skull cap that is similar to the yarmulkes that Orthodox Jewish men wear when praying in synagogues. (The zucchetto is white for the Pope, red for cardinals, purple for bishops, and black for abbots.)

[@bobicrni1284]

We do take bread and wine, we do remember how Jesus did that with the disciples. We do it to remember how Jesus went on the Cross for us. We do pray for the sick and Pastors lays hands on people and prays for filling of Holy Spirit, for blessing etc, we do prey for and help each others. No one denies Pentecost and Holy Spirit. We do love God above anything else. We don't take away anything from Jesus's teachings, you accuse us of believing in God's word? (the Bible) When did God said "truly, truly I tell you, whoever doesnt venerates Saint Ignatius won't see the Kingdom of Heaven"?

[@jerome6193]

Once you get past the confusion of modern "churches" and look to orthodoxy, the real struggle finally begins.

[@Fred-Phelps]

that is a very interesting statement, please do elaborate?

[@jerome6193]

@@Fred-Phelps It's difficult to put into words. Try and see for yourself by inquiring at an Orthodox church near you. The clergy are usually very welcoming. But one way to put it would be to say this: When you truly struggle to be united to the Holy Trinity (being received into Orthodoxy), the Enemy will war against you. But the Church and Her Saints are there to help us along the way and God will be with you so there is nothing to fear.

[@Fred-Phelps]

@@jerome6193 can you recommend any books on the topic?

[@justintaylor3044]

@@Fred-PhelpsI’m a catholic but the ‘philokalia’ is an excellent complication of the orthodox saint’s teachings on The Lord, how we understand the nature of God and methods for spiritual warfare against evil. Become close to the saints because they walk us through how to love God and fight evil, having been through the trial of flesh themselves.

[@Fred-Phelps]

@@justintaylor3044 very interesting

[@benwilliams3539]

The first point proved yourself wrong. The fact that a group of people calling themselves the church decuded what is canon proves that being canon isnt all that important.

[@greenmountainbrownie6473]

I subbed to your channel. I was raised in a non-religious household but I have searched for political and religious truth and meaning since I was, maybe perhaps, 10. At 22 I find myself really liking Eastern Orthodoxy. If Christianity is true, Eastern Orthodoxy in undoubtedly true as in seems to me, as an outsider, to being the closest thing to the Early Church; nothing suggesting that it isn't the Early Church. I am a bit of a grug brain though. I see the infighting among the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it sows doubt. By what right does the Patriarch of Constantinople have to recognize the Church in Ukraine as being independent from Moscow? By what right does the Patriarch of Constantinople have to not recognize the "Orthodox Church in America" when it was granted autocephaly by the Russian Orthodox Church? Isn't it an internal matter? To avoid being a hypocrite, by what right does the Patriarch of Moscow have in intervening in the affairs of the Patriarch of Alexandria? I have 3 questions; 1. If I, being an American, was brought into the faith by, lets say, a Greek Orthodox Church would the Russian Orthodox Church recognize me as E.O? If I was brought into the faith by ROCOR would the Greeks recognize it? The nearest Church to me is OCA, would that be recognized by all? 2. What is the difference between an autocephalous church and a patriarchate? 3. Why is the Patriarch of Constantinople the "first among equals"? From the perspective of E.O Rome might be in schism, but it's not like Rome has ceased to exist. In the absence of communion with Rome shouldn't one of the other Petrine Sees, either Alexandria or Antioch, be considered the "first among equals"? Anyway, love your videos, God bless you and keep it up.

[@jofuf]

Regarding your first question, I converted through the Greek Archdiocese and then started attending a ROCOR parish and there weren’t any issues. You just can’t go back to Greek parishes and receive the sacraments, though I’m told that a bishop may allow that in certain circumstances. I think clergy feel the effects much more because they cannot concelebrate with Greek priests, or if Greek clergy are involved in a pan-Orthodox service, they can’t participate.

[@jofuf]

Also it’s only a one-way thing, the Greeks don’t care if you’re from a Russian church

[@OrthodoxKyle]

You ask good questions. But before anything you should pray on it, visit a local Orthodox parish and talk to a PRIEST. Here is a locator if in the US: orthodoxyinamerica.org/ 1. Schism/ breaking communion was very common in the early Church, don't let this stop you from becoming Orthodox. I think another commenter explained this but visit a few Churches in your local area and join a Church that will strength your relationship with God. We won't know if this problem is serious or just another blimp for decades or even centuries, If this issue really worries you then join a non-Greek parish. But again nothing wrong with joining a Greek one. 2. Autocephalous church = Administratively Independent Church. Their Patriarch/top Bishop is independent and does not report to any higher human authority. Examples = Cyprus & Georgia Patriarchate = is just the office a Patriarch holds, A Patriarch is just a higher term of honor of a Bishop. 3. Patriarch of Constantinople the "first among equals" = because they were second in honor only behind Rome. Rome does not profess the Orthodox Christian Faith anymore, they are in schism so naturally the title "first among equals" transfer to the second in honor = Constantinople. If Rome got rid of all the Western Innovations the Pope would be reinstated as the first among equals...!!! It is by rank of honor and in the history of the Church = Constantinople was Second. This was specifically addressed @ First Council of Constantinople which was the 2nd Ecumenical Council: "The third canon reads: The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome." This is why they are Second & not other petrine sees.. Overall, hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions & I will try and answer. But the BEST and most IMPORTANT thing for YOU to do is to VISIT a local Orthodox Parish, meet some Orthodox people IRL, talk with the Priest, ask them questions, get a Orthodox Study Bible, Check out some books like The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware, PRAY a lot... etc etc.. God Bless!! and good luck on your journey!!☦

[@acekoala457]

@@jofuf Technically if the Altar is in a Jurisdiction in Communion with both the Greeks and Russians the clergy can concelebrate, kinda weird though

[@clarksmith494]

Protestants are the best. Long live America.

[@nuggetoftruth-ericking7489]

I thought that Protestants use God's word, the Holy Bible as their only true judge of proper doctrine?

[@kadesharp6658]

You’re responding to a non-denominational mega church not historical Protestantism

[@Sid-nv1vh]

As a catechumen in RCIA, I must say I enjoy these videos.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

God Bless! Orthodox or Catholic? I think we both call it RCIA

[@Sid-nv1vh]

@@OrthodoxKyle I’ve recently converted Catholic but the content of your videos is really good you deserve a lot of subs man. I’m a Protestant called by God to leave the Evangelical nonsense. Sometimes I get tempted to become Orthodox, but there are really good apologetical arguments for both sides. I’m supposed to get confirmed this Easter. I very much enjoy the Latin Mass. Even though I think eastern Christianity is more beautiful with its mystery it’s hard to believe that God would allow the universal church to be so small and fail miserably in evangelizing the whole world (the number of Catholics are greater than Protestants and Orthodox combined). Just my personal opinion, might settle as a Byzantine Catholic.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

@@Sid-nv1vh 1. Thank you!!! Going to a Byzantine rite @ Eastern Catholic Church like the Melkites is a good place to start if you aren't sure about Orthodoxy yet. You should still visit a Orthodox Church, Pray on it and check out some books like The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware!!.. 2. Regarding, the size differences consider that Catholicism was mainly spread through Colonial Empires like French, Spanish, Portuguese.... Historically Orthodox countries never had HUGE colonial empires.... and size isn't everything = there are 1.9 Billion Muslims, Islam was mainly spread through the sword & birthrates.... I see where you are coming from but we can't base truth based on how many people believe it because at one point there was only 12 Christians? then 300? a few thousands etc etc. There are also over 220 million+ Orthodox Faithful! Good luck on your journey! God Bless (:

[@cjgumbert]

@@Sid-nv1vh If you'd want to give the Orthodox a sincere look, I'd recommend reading Michael Whelton's book Two Paths. Whelton was a Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy. The book covers history from both the 1st and 2nd millennium and is a big eye opener for many Westerners.

[@Konton0178]

Matthew 7:13-14 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[@portespaulii7580]

I pray for the Restoration of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Brotherhood. Thank You for this knowledge. I really need all of these. God bless you Kyle 🙏

[@zacharyvondeylen2567]

Bunch of strawman arguments

[@uncreatedlogos]

Hebrews 7:5 😂 read the whole chapter man... ‭Hebrews‬ ‭7:11‬ Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on this basis the people received the law), why was there still need for another priest to appear-one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

[@nemochuggles]

This would be all fine if the traditions of the Orthodox Church didn’t fly in the face of certain parts of scripture. This Includes all the issues that Catholicism presents like Maryology, veneration of icons, and praying to saints.

[@justinhawes1593]

I have never rolled my eyes harder than when I saw this video title.

[@OrthodoxKyle]

It is big tent video... all Protestant sects fall into ONE of these errors watch these: Protestants. watch this: kzbin.info/aero/PL6eyVWFC0v8ceRe-hveesAjWERK3Rj8eV&si=I9MVTOiUx2Bycxy_ read the Book Rock and Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham! Come visit an Orthodox Church! orthodoxyinamerica.org/ reach out if you have questions!