Isn't lutheranism nonsense too? Catholic asking.

I feel for you. Americans know one thing to be true. TV. Since the Christianity they see on TV is Fundamentalism, that’s obviously what the Catholics and ELCA and Episcopalians teach. So liturgical churches and churches more willing to listen to modern scholars can’t possibly exist as they are not in on TV. Keep trying.

@@koppite9600 knock it off

@@koppite9600 YHWH in action. Let's cause chaos and hatred. I am a wannabe god who is intensely pissed off because I am defeated everywhere, even when I create evil (aka Satan. I just can't win, but fortunately my followers want to escape their lives into a fake reality called heaven), because we are the only ones who escape and will never have to deal with reality at all. Please note we are already practising

Am not a baptized Lutheran. BUT. Whenever I Iisten to Bach. Or Pachelbel. Or Hugo Distler (!). ,.et al./... And especially when I play them on the organ, I become a cross between Dr. Albert Schweitzer and JFK. And I exclaim, to myself of course but now to you, bon Pasteur: "Today, I am a IK BIN EIN Confessor of Augsburg. I have had many exchanges "on life's way" (Kierkegaard) with Evangelical🎉/evangelische also Missouri Synod Lutheran pastors and lay members. These exchanges were without exception informative and brotherly, sometimes provocative as in thought-provoking, never condescending, always generous. I am referring to both professional and intimately social meetings/meetups. You don't need to apologize for sacrificing systematic theology in favor of pastoral care. I say that you are in Good Company. I mean The Man who said this: "Ye search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life; but it is these that testify of me." One of the few passes in The Bible I don't have to paraphrase, and maybe get a little wrong! A good one, eh? === BUT I once read a kind of taboo book here in the U.S. T'was bc my thesis director (in England) assigned it for discussion during the following week's 2-hour, viva tutorial which tutorials led to the degree of M. Phil *Diary of a Country Priest* by one of the writers of the "French Catholic" school. After recovering my composure reading the last page, the thought came to me "but who does pastoral care for the pastors?" Nobody in this work of "fiction." The parishioners (or students, or fathers, or??) demand much but give little in return. And so I refer you to 2 settings of the Advent chorale "Es ist ein Ros entsprungen by two of those breathtakingly universal, Lutheran composers. With Michael Praetorius it comes down to the unconventional use of one very common chord

All he's doing is showing historical facts and interpreting them. This entire video is a "yes but ummm" response.

Roman Catholicism is a false religion and it’s not found by Jesus it’s found by Satan himself. Roman Catholicism is a mixture of Paganism and Christianity and Roman Emperor Constantine had merged Christianity and Paganism together to unite with The Roman Empire. Roman Catholicism came around 300ad and many Pagans was worshiping their Pagan Mother Goddess and throughout that time many Pagans had converted into becoming Roman Catholics and they worship Mary throughout that time.

BOOM! Spot on. Thank you.

@@henkaistudio Account for the devotion to Mary in the Orthodox Church and the devotion to Mary before Constantine.

I agree your faith does not have pagan roots, but it's a faith of genocide, and all of its success comes from your willingness to commit violence. I was chemically balded at Billings West High School by 4 catholic boys who were the private thugs of the principal, Dave Irion (another Catholic). This attack was covered up by then School Resource Officer and current Chief of Police for the Billings Police (and Catholic) Rich St John. Your faith wounded me for life, and you have not sought to make peace with me. God curse you all.

@@philsphan4414 yeah exactly even the Orthodoxy be preaching a false gospel too.

Well, actually it helps praying to saint Antony of Padua when you lost something. I also do it now, and I’m not a Catholic. 😃

The imperial symbol of Eurasian steppe khaganates was called a Tugh. It is a black or white "banner" (following the split of the ancient Hunnic empire to black and white factions), made of a circular array of tassels made of yak's tails, which has at its top a trident. The imperial trident has the center point shaped as either a flame, or a disk radiating flames, while the other two points are conjoined at the bottom in a crescent shape. The Seljuk imperial Tugh had a flame disk on it with three flame tongues coming out. Since the Ottomans claimed that Osman was given the paraphernalia of Seljuk imperial rule, they adopted originally a similar Tugh that over the years had its flaming disk simplified into a star. Then someone apparently decided to turn the trident around 90 degrees and ended up with the crescent moon symbol. You can still see it in Tugh form in the Ankara museum. So yes, this symbol had nothing to do whatsoever with Islam and may have originally symbolized the pan-Eurasian sky god Tengri. With that said, the Ottomans weren't the first to come up with this idea. Other Turkic splinters of the Seljuk Empire also came up with similar designs really quickly. Of note, the Mamluks had a version where the moon wasn't rotated and another where the moon was rotated only about 60 degrees. Basically, the moon (originally meant to symbolize horns) was already there, and as Muslims didn't like the flame symbol (which they associated with Zoroastrianism), they always converted it into a star.

Those who told you that were/are dumber than a box of rocks.

Dan can answer this well, but I do have a concentration in Church history and it’s not accurate to say the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest or original rendition. Roman Catholics and Orthodox have a common ancestor they both trace their lineage to. But the development of East and West was gradual as was the split.

there is no one "first" formal tradition of christianity. the church that the catholics and orthodox splintered into was already split pretty much from the start (451 ad coptic christians split for example)

@@chuckshingledecker2216 from Peter to Francis, Catholic is still that church from the 1st century

@@abaddon2148 be specific in what you mention.

Roman Catholicism is a mixture of Christianity and Paganism put together and Roman Catholics are Pagans disguised as Christianity just so you know.

@@henkaistudio As I said, don't smear those of us who want nothing to do with that faith.

Blessed be

Most hosts have no symbol whatsoever.

@@andrewsuryali8540 Doesn't this depend on the supplier, your taste and possibly your budget? I seem to recall that we ordered both flat and embossed ones from Charles Farris. Maybe that's just CofE, or maybe I misremember. There seem to be a lot of designs out there nowadays.

@@stephenspackman5573 Most Catholics today live in countries where such businesses don't exist, so parishes often make their own hosts and these end up unadorned.

@@andrewsuryali8540 That makes sense, but I don't think it can be used to make a (crypto-?)doctrinal point (if there was ever one to be made). It would still “work” if you used bread from the supermarket, but that wouldn't address the question of preferred symbolism.

Or how it can rise in the east and be followed by people heading west.

Judaism and Catholicism and Islam do all have some connection with each other just so you know.

he's South African.

@@bengreen171that explains a lot tbh

@@sanguillotine yep.

to be fair, what he is responding is absolutely not dogma

Dumb comment from a dumb person

You misunderstand his meaning by 1st book. He's referring to the origin of the symbolic structure of the stories. That these stories are as old as time itself and even older than when they were written down. Their deeply interwoven into the fabric of our being and that humans have been living within these stories and continue to as well. He is using 1st in the sense of it being what sits at the ground of Western conception. He proposes it a metatruth that makes truth possible. (aka Aletheia) You can't come at Jordan Peterson with a genuine attempt to understand him if you take his words from the Modern rationalist materialist perspective which hold a hyper focus on historicity historical representational correctness.

@@820monster wow, a jp sycophant that can't help themselves but overreact to the slightest perceived critique with a word salad of pure nonsense nearly worthy of dear leader. Typical? Yes. Sad? Definitely. Will they ever deprogram? I doubt it; little lost boys will always need a leader or guru of one kind or another. Best I suppose we can hope for is they move on to someone slightly more honest (or at least with content that is based in data instead of neo-Jungian mumbojumbo) than jp once the benzos and/or meat diet finally do him in for good.

Christianity adopoted their imagery from the prevailing greco-roman way of depicting gods and various supernatural beings. So Jesus and/or especially God the father later got the looks of Zeus or Jupiter. The earlier way of indicating a divine being, namely tiny horns, got used to depict satanic beings instead. The devil aquired alot of his looks from the god Pan. Holy people got depicted with halo's just as earlier. And on and on the list goes. The visual imagery of later religious art in the catholic for sure incorporated the classical worlds depictions of gods and other divine beings. But it's not exactly part of doctrine that angels are depicted as another kind of supernatural creature already in the roman tradition or that devils have horns and so on e.t.c.

Shhhh! SECRET society!

@@alanb8884 Society with secrets, not a secret society.

And OES uses that as an allegory for following Jesus. So clearly, Satanism.

I don't know how Dan would answer, but I think the only way to not lose faith is through consistent experiences with the divine. It's easy to point out inconsistencies in the Bible and not be shaken when you know personally the God who inspired people who fumbled around with the 'words' of Deity.

As a Lutheran pastor who learned much of what Dan talks about (and as a concentration in church history) my answer is that I do not worship the Bible or have faith in the Bible. I have faith in God in Christ Jesus. If there were no bible but the story of Christ still existed I would be compelled by that story without written texts. Fundamentalists and biblical literalist have a much harder time with your question which is why so many just outright deny actual history.

@@chuckshingledecker2216 thanks, that is really deep and I feel like I can barely intellectually grasp that but I think i get the jist. man I never heard it like that tho. So do you read the bible still? How do you position it ? Sorry if I am riddling you with this but I find as I am now midlife my synicism has grown to the point that I am struggling with Faith tbh

I understand your situation. I was raised conservative fundamentalist and have spent the last two years deconstructing. I've really struggled to keep my faith when all I can see in the church is hate, selfishness and a denial of reality. It's hard to believe in a good God when all his followers seem to be awful people. The best thing for me was figuring what I know to be true, which for me is that a personal relationship with God is worthwhile and beneficial. Everything else, church, bible, theology etc. is negotiable. I can't ever know the correct theology so I've stopped trying. I'm content(ish) with having more questions than answers. The other beneficial and practical thing has been connecting with believers who understand and don't care about dogma. Good people who walk the walk but aren't concerned with the talk. I can't engage with a church that hates everyone different, but I can find community with a church that priorities loving people over sermons and doctrine. As for the bible, I've stopped caring about what it says. If God wants to use it to speak to me, I'll listen. If a pastor wants to use it to demonise the different, I won't. As Dan McClellan says, the bible is negotiable. It will say what you want it to say. I'm not perfect so my interpretation of the bible isn't either. I'm done pretending I have the correct interpretation because I know I never will.

@@AndrewReesonLeather sheesh don't listen to what this fraud channel is teaching that what is written in the Bible is negotiable. Maybe in the sense that as a person you have your own free will to either obey or disobey what is commanded in the Bible. Ignorance of the law does not exempt one's person to not receive punishment for its crimes. Will you be able to say to a judge if you commit a crime "Ohh can you exempt me because I don't know the law"? Of course not!. The Law is there for you to know and the Bible has the laws of God. You must read it. Humble yourself before God and ask his guidance to lead you in the truth. Don't look up to people but rather you look up to who Jesus is. For He says" I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me".

His accent is a bit unusual; but it mostly sounds South African ... definitely not a British accent!

I think he's South African.

Exactly. Rome desired to bring the pagans into the church, so they simply changed the names of some of the rituals. The ancient pagan idols of Tamuz were simply renamed as Mary and Jesus. Do some research on ancient pagan rituals and it will become quite apparent.

People like them. Are yust there to revel in Christian bashing. These people eat this up. Like a dog from floor.

was Jesus Christ catholic?

@@brittianyclements1821 Catholicism claims "we were at the foot of the cross 🙄" I'm not sure how they exactly unified as the "first" Christians; perhaps when Christian became the Rome State religion, The Roman Catholic Church 🤷🏼 Jesus wasn't a Christian either😆 he was an Orthodox Jew, and was attempting to lead all back to Father who is a Jewish god amongst many gods... so there's that 😊

My history shows different story- History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? There is also the historical events of the 3 councils of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage that will have to be reckoned with…

You're implying "Christianity" as a whole isn't a mixture of Jewish and pagan ritual and thought, but it always was and still is. (For the record, the "Catholic Church" is a term older than "Christianity," used by early Christian leaders and laity to denote the whole or universal assembly of Christ.) The language of the Trinity has its origins in Hellenistic philosophy, Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic thinker, and many of the rites and spaces associated with Christianity attest to both Jewish and pagan culture. Hell, Paul was Hellenized Jew who quotes both Greek philosophy and Jewish scripture depending on his audience. There is no "pure" Christianity or Judaism. Many ideas in both (like, say, Satan as an enemy of the divine) have roots in encounters with pagan cultures and religions (in that case, probably Babylonian Zoroastrianism).

Before there was a Bible as you know it there was the Trinity doctrine developing in the church beginning at Nicaea 325 THEN came the Christian Bible some 70 years later you quote from. Soooooo- History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did?

@@srich7503The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that “the doctrine of the holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.” It also admits that the doctrine must be dated as from about three hundred and fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ! So the early Christians who were taught directly from Jesus Christ did not believe that God is a Trinity!! The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Trinity: “It is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God.”

@@sunnyjohnson992 maybe not the written word of GOD that i agree with, which is why i posted what i posted above in question format. 👍🏻 edit… actually this is the question version with including the Trinity… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian docrtine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?

In my opinion, the mere fact Christianity owns everything to the holy Roman catholic church.... Is the first and foremost reason to RUN!

In fact if you read the Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine and compare it with Scripture it clearly shows that Catholic Doctrine does not follow the Holy Scriptures of the Bible. This is very interesting. I want to present something I recently came across. If you read the converts catechism of Catholic Doctrine and go to part II, Section II, Chapter 5, number 3(the third commandment). Q. What is the third commandment? A. The third commandment is remember the Sabbath that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. Q. Which is the Sabbath day? A. Saturday is the Sabbath day. Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for saturday? A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the apostles on a Sunday. Q. By what authority did the church substitute Sunday for saturday? A. The church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plentitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her. Q. What does the third commandment? A. The third commandment commands us to sanctify Sunday as the Lord's Day. According to their(Catholic Church) doctrine The 2nd commandment in the Bible is not observed, the Sabbath was replaced by Sunday and the 10th commandment was broken into two parts thus fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. The only commandment related to time is the 4th commandment. God did not change the 4th commandment nor does he change. God does not change. He does not break his covenant. The 10 commandments of God are a reflection of his character. Jesus is truth. John 14:6 God's word is truth. John 17:17 Psalm 119:142,151 God's law is truth. John 4:24 God's people worship him in spirit and in truth. Malachi 3:6 - God never changes Psalm 111:7,8 God's commandments stand fast for ever and ever and are done in truth and uprightness. Psalm 89:34 God does not break his covenant. The new covenant is not about the doing away with God's law, it's about where he puts it(in your heart; Hebrews 8:10). God's saints, remnant keep his law: Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12, Revelation 22:14 I pray you study this out and seek what the word of the Lord teaches. After all the warning in Revelation 14 is about worship of the true God. The Pope is also known as: The Annuario Pontificio, the official directory of the Holy See, describes the office of the pope by the following titles: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. The Pope is known as the vicar of Christ. The word “vicar” means to be a representative of; the pope is our leader who acts on behalf of Christ. Christ never gave any man on earth his authority which the Catholic Church teaches was given to the Pope. Claiming that is blasphemy.

@@vceptx if you read the bible critically.. if you compare the god of the torah and the god of the book of malachi and the the new testament.. god does change!

History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did?

@@srich7503 Yes, they did. Thus the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. And Paul writing that the letter kills, while the spirit gives life. The Jewish people were people of the letter. That's why they got Jesus killed and didn't see he was the Messiah. But God can make anything work for good. Even the church of the fall, the Catholic church.

@@platinumbulletsniper so either “Catholicism goes against everything that Christianity stands for” is an erroneous statement or “Yes they did” provide Christianity with its rule of faith, the Bible, is erroneous. One or the other. 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@srich7503 No, it's not. They did copy the book. But the book said ''the kingdom of God is within'' and ''the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.'' The bible is not the word of God, the bible is the word about God. God's word is written in our hearts. The whole story of the bible is how even God's people turned away from God. God had the promised land, but they were stubborn and had to walk through the desert. Then you have all the prophets who call the people back to God (because again they had turned away from God, towards their intellectual head knowledge). It was God's people, the Jews, specifically the pharisees (the learned people, the people of the book), who killed Jesus. But through all that being turned away from God, He still made a way to bring us Jesus. In the same way the Catholic church might have compiled and translated the bible, but at the same time they are lost in the desert. Mary is not the mother of God. Jesus was not God. Praying to Mary is basically the same as Eve listening to the snake. Jesus came and conquered. . We are free. We can return to God and pray through the Holy Spirit. It's not wrong to read the bible, but the bible is just a book ABOUT God and God's people. The word OF God is written in our hearts. Which we can return to only because of our crown prince and loving oldest brother Jesus Christ, sitting at the right hand of God the Father. I mean no harm. Greetings and be well (:

@@platinumbulletsniper ummmm no you said yes to the above. That is the Catholic/Orthodox church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible in the 5th century when the church was not in agreement of those books. So if you do not trust the same church to interpret the same scriptures today that chose those scriptures to begin with it’s ludicrous. Either you dont trust her to interpret the scriptures today and therefore could not have chose the correct books to begin with or if you trust her to have choose the correct books to begin with it only makes sense to trust her to interpret those same books today. You cannot,logically, have it both ways.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h7xlpaaBnNvNkYk.html