Could you give any examples of some protestants "belonging" to the Orthodox Church? I'm intrigued...

@@semipelagianpangolin well, I personally believe that the Reformation in the fifteen hundreds was an attempt to correct serious errors in rcc that went out of control and resulted in what we today call Protestant churches/congregations. Although there are lots of ”hard-core protestants” there are also many who wish they could be part of some of the historic churches (canonical orthodox churches, the oriental churches and rome), perhaps they are part of a pentacostal church only for family reasons. Many of these christians concider the doctrine and teachings in rcc extremely difficult to accept (the popes universal juristiction, infailability when speaking ex-cathedra, being ”the vicar of Christ”, meritum of the saints etc). On the other hand, the teachings in the orthodox churches are mostly non-controversial. I believe that this group of people ”belong”, or have their natural home, in the orthodox church. I don’t know if this make sense to you…

You can’t belong to the Orthodox Church without converting what the above poster said is nonsense

@@patricmanda4665 of course not! The matter here is wether conversion is only for a few stray christians here and there, or if there are large groups of christians that are in some sense so ”close” to the orthodox church that they could convert in large groups, i.e. still individually but perhaps participate in study groups together etc.

I have heard catholics ask for Mary to pray for us sinners but not to dave us directly, I have yet to hear an Orthodox ask much of Mary at all.

Its interesting to talk to Protestants about worship, I was raised non denominational and to this day the first thing that comes to mind when I hear “worship” is the worship service where we all sing songs together at the beginning and end of services.

I had the same issue, I don't have it any more. Icon veneration is not worship. You can become Orthodox without it. Nobody will force you to venerate the icon and I would say if you feel strongly against it, don't do it. It will come with time. In spirit and the truth is the way we should worship. Regarding icons, they are like a picture of a loved person. They can also represent an important event - picture is worth a than 1000 words, some concepts are impossible to describe with words. My favorite icon is - Resurrection, Christ's Descent into Hell: The doors of the Hades are toppled down, He is holding Adam and Eve by the hand raising them from the grave, He is glowing in His glory, all locks are unlocked, the righteous are standing and witnessing, God's promise fulfilled... Everything is simple, yet powerful. Icons are also windows into heaven, there are many articles about them that I would recommend to read. It is easy to fall into a trap of idol worship thus we need to be careful. Even in the first temple there were paintings, statues and carvings, all walls and doors were decorated. It was not seen as idol worship as object of worship was God. Idols do not need to be physical objects - money, job, addiction anything can become an object of worship if we commit ourselves to it. We need to remember that all power comes from God directly and to put Him first. I'm struggling with this part.

I just read an excellent article from a site called Russian Faith about icons not being idolatry. The author took time to talk about the 3 specific kinds of idols that Lord listed that were not be made. They were the types worshipped in Egypt, from which He had just rescued His people .. many of whom left Egypt as idol worshippers.. See Exodus 20.. The author gave 3 brief lists of named idols they worshipped. I can't supply a link...but it was excellent.. Don't worry about this. You will grow to accept icons and love them.. You have already had a glimpse into their hidden beauty.

That's not true. Protestants have nothing to do with the fact that idols are anti-Christian. They are idols, not icons. They are worshiped not venerated. The EO is a cult, not Christian. Don't lie to yourself about this. It's obvious. Read the Bible. Catholic and orthodox are anti-Christian cults. No discussion.

Necromancy is requesting information from the dead. Intercession of the saints is asking those alive in Christ to pray for us. Completely different.

Please listen Lord of Spirits podcast episodes Cucumbers Among Scarecrows and Invisible Image. It's 6 hrs worth of listening but there is no thorougher an answer to your question. Glory to Christ!

The reason you did this when part of the new age movement is because everything True is twisted in the false movements. Everything outside the Church is an inversion of the Church. So, if you want to know what the Truth is, in a way, you can survey the various pagan (satanic) practices of the world and compare them to the practices within Orthodox. Orthodox is the true expression. Satan isn’t the inventor of anything, he’s the fraudster. And all frauds make some use of the truth in order to make their fraud believable.

일부 사람들은 그것을 다르게 보고 개체를 원본으로 사용할 수도 있지만 이는 대부분 사실입니다. 우리는 광야에서 들려 올려진 뱀을 기억합니다. 그것은 구원의 표징으로 시작되었어나 사람들이 그것을 잘못된 형태로 사용함에 따라 하스기야는 그것을 파괴해야 했습니다. 다른 사람의 참된 예배를 침해하지 말고, 우리의 내면의 동시와 동기에 대해 영원히 경계해야 합니다.

The first "move" is interaction. Abstraction is good, *after* interaction. Categories are fine *after* interaction. This is one of the most basic differences between the western Churches and the Orthodox Church.

@@MJS2376 absolutely. It really is a major difference between the two. My whole family speaks in these contradictory and vague abstractions, where there's no cause nor effect, no interaction between words or anything. The holy Spirit is an all powerful all encompassing abstraction, with it they can break every law of thought and language, all reason, because the contradictions or ambiguity can hide behind the mystery of the holy Spirit.

My next video will be about the fear of death. I was inspired by a conversation with someone I met at your house. ❤

Thank you I learned so much!

Some of us former Protestants need slow speech to get the info through our thick skulls and change old ways of thinking 😂😅 (although I don’t think you speak too slowly!)

If others believe the video is too slow, they have the ability to adjust the playback speed in their setting for each video. I thought it was perfect.

I don’t think so, your words are slow but they’re deliberate and it makes you very peaceful to listen to 😊

Slower is better I think!

Hahaha, personally, I think it magnifies your thoughtful tone and manner.

Have you looked into Orthodoxy yet? I came from the Protestant church and looked into both Catholic and Orthodoxy and found it more fulfilling and making sense to me. It does feel like the fullness of the church.

Exactly what my husband said. Do the next one on the Theotokos. I have some "fear and trembling" about that, because it's even harder to describe our love for her than to describe our love for icons. I'm percolating on it!

The ark of the covenant was venerated, so you are incorrect.

@@TyrannicalReigner I can't believe Orthodox Christians make this argument. Joshua did fall down before the Ark, because it was the very presence of God among His people. They were not venerating an image of God, still less a saint's image. I cannot imagine having so much desperation to defend an obviously false doctrine, that Orthodox clergy dare to compare the Ark of the Covenant to their images of Mary and the saints. Such arguments only convince me that Orthodoxy is a deeply and dangerously erring church.

@@stephenwright4973 hold on, it's an object they are bowing before. We believe icons are means of grace just as the ark was. Therefore you're not making any case against it. A psychological report that you find it hard to believe is not an argument and is irrelevant.

@@TyrannicalReigner If you think that icons of Mary and the saints are a "means of grace" just as the Ark was, then you are contradicting your whole defense of icons. The Ark was where God would meet with His people. It was where He was present with His people. The Ark was exactly what you Orthodox say your icons AREN'T. You deny that the person depicted is literally present, you insist that venerating the icon passes the veneration on to the (absent) prototype. You are, in fact, using images & likenesses exactly as Exodus 20:4-5 forbids. And that's not to address the fact that Joshua was not venerating the Ark, but the God Who was present at the mercy seat. And that you Orthodox are giving veneration to images of Mary and the saints, for which you cannot possibly use the Ark as any sort of precedent.

@@stephenwright4973 The grace of God is God's presence, inasmuch as we are able to experience it. You simply have a misunderstanding of what "God's presence" even means and have adopted a modernist (actually Roman Catholic/Thomist) view on the topic, probably unwittingly. The Saints emanate God's grace just as people and physical objects do all throughout the Bible, and as they have become "partakers of the divine nature," as Peter says. The fact that there's nothing like this in gnostic, made-up protestantism, doesn't help your case. "Joshua was not venerating the ark, but the God who was present at the mercy seat." So did Joshua see God there? No, he was interacting with God's grace aka His divine energies. Once again, he was doing the same thing we are doing by bowing before the ark, which regardless of your assertions to the contrary, is exactly what he did. It just happens to be very inconvenient for your position.

Venerating icons is not a part of church services or an element of worship. When you come into the church, you go up and "greet the host" by venerating the icon of Christ--just a private greeting but not an element of public worship. There is a Good Friday (Thurs night) service in which we line up and venerate a large icon of Christ on the Cross--worship pauses while everyone does that. It's very moving.

@fredericamathewes-green I see. That isn't what I was told from my local orthodox friends but perhaps every church is a little different, or perhaps I misunderstood. That's good to know that not every orthodox church does do that. That was definitely the part of the icon conversation my husband and I were hesitant about.

I guess to clarify, saints aren't made holy by themselves. When we venerate the holy icons of saints, we aren't just honoring the person depicted in the image, but also honoring the uncreated light of God. Those halos on the saint's heads represents God's glory shining through His faithful servants. In short, to venerate His saints is to give glory ultimately to God.

I don't think you understand. We honour saints because they lived a holy life dedicated to God, and we ought to strive to be like them, to be close to God. We don't respect them in a way you wouldn't respect relatives, with the additional bonus that our respect comes from their loyalty to God. God is where the centre of our attention is (or should be), veneration of saints is simply respect to those who lived how we should do, a life dedicated to God.

Let me explain: Pagans were not originally stupid enough to believe that an object made by a human is actually a god. The original purpose of every pagan idol was to *represent* a god, rather than to *be* a god. If asked, "Are you worshipping that idol?" and you pressed them on the metaphysics of it, they would probably say, "No!" just like Orthodox people deny that they are worshipping an icon. They would say, "We are worshipping a real deity *through* this image." But it cannot be denied that pagans really did worship their statues and images. The prophets mocked them for it. So how does an image come to be a god? Well, it must be that over time the idol becomes more and more important, becoming imbued with magical properties and attributed more and more worth, until it becomes less a window to the god than the thing worth-shipped in itself, and the pagan has become a fool as described by Paul in Romans 1. Therefore it doesn't necessarily matter what you *think* you are doing; the heart is deceitful and rationalizations are common in religion as well as secular life. If you are literally bowing down in front of an image how is this not a violation of the 2nd commandment?

@@andyjones1982 Disclaimer: I am not an expert; the best person to ask for a better explanation would be an Orthodox priest. Bowing, as is used in the English translations of the 2nd Commandment, means supplication or servitude, not literal bowing. The word for image is pesel in Hebrew but carries the implication of worship. Additionally, in the context of the 10 commandments in Exodus, they had just made a large Idol to worship instead of God. Additionally, the 1st Commandment indicates that we should not worship any other god or anything above God. So in this context, it appears as though God is telling us that we should not worship anything before Him, whether an intention, an Idol of another God, or anything else. But the main thing is the worship, NOT the image itself. Solomon's temple had gold oxen and a sculpture of the serpent made by Moses, and God did not destroy or order them to destroy these statues or sculptures - because they weren't worshipping them. In general, I understand it as this: if we have seen the physical manifestation of something, we can make an image of it. To be logically consistent in the idea that we should not have any images of things in Heaven or below the Earth, any relatives or historical figures who are no longer present on this Earth should be destroyed as they are no longer on the Earth. This is the predominant view of the Amish, who do not like any images or photographs taken of them or their dead because of the 2nd Commandment. I hope this helps explain it a little more.

@@andyjones1982 Orthodox do not worship icons. And I’m pretty sure many pagans believed that the idols they made were inhabited by the spirit of that god or intermediaries daimons of that god.

​@@andyjones1982 the logical conclusion to your position is that those who bowed before the ark of the covenant were idol worshippers.

@@andyjones1982 What is wrong with bowing in front of an icon of Jesus Christ? Is He an idol?! (Idols = pagan deities = demons) Is the Holy Mother of God an idol (some pagan deity)? Are saints idols (pagan deities)? Why can't we venerate the Holy Mother and the saints?! They are not idols!

I'd advise to watch the video to answer your questions, since all of them were answered in-- at the absolute most-- 17 minutes.

No different from the hundreds of faces of other worshippers. That's what icons do--they make visible the thousands and millions of other worshippers who are surrounding us in the "great cloud of witnesses."

Completely bad faith take.

@@TyrannicalReigner No, it isn't bad faith. I may, of course, be in error. But you are completely wrong if you accuse me of faking my shock and horror at both the Orthodox doctrine and the Orthodox defense of icon veneration.

@@stephenwright4973 "I am convinced that Catholic and Orthodox actually know this." No, we don't. We have a different understanding than you. This has been thoroughly explained to you though, so you insisting that we are not telling the truth is indeed bad faith.

@@TyrannicalReigner I guess I don't understand what you mean by bad faith. Certainly I believe that Orthodox Christians know enough of the Scriptural prohibitions on icon veneration to be culpable for doing it. The problem is, as I say, the ultimate locus of authority. Orthodox think their "church" (however nebulously they define that term) has ultimate authority to define truth. We Protestants adamantly deny that notion.

It is all about intent, my friend. All icons produced from the Faith(Orthodoxy) ultimately communicate our love for the Lord. If we worship the image/wood itself, then that is a sin. If we start believing in other gods and make images of them, that is a sin.

Make sure your problems do not arise from pride... or from hidden Gnosticism... lack of obedience, which is also pointing back to pride, etc.

1) Who told you that you _had_ to venerate the icons? The priest of a church you visited? 2) The Seventh Ecumenical Council was occasioned by iconoclasts that would see to it that nobody _made_ icons, let alone venerated them. There was no way to _not_ make a dichotomous decision in the face of that, and those circumscribed for anathema were the iconoclasts in question. In practice, nobody forces you to venerate icons (the canons are not enforced so woodenly, as that's not their point), but it _is_ incumbent upon one to understand their proper place in the Church and in personal practice.

@@seg162 yes

@@woozyjoe4703 I'm guessing that "yes" is to the first question I asked. If that's the case, what would you rather do instead of venerate them (I had a specific idea of "venerate" when I made my last comment, but the term's meaning is broader than that idea)?

@@seg162 hi there. Sorry. My Yes was indeed to your first question. I have no fundamental objections to veneration if people find that helpful in their spiritual practise. It was the enforced (and prescribed methods) that I struggled with. Mind you, I have since been told by another priest this is not the case which obviously is completely understandable.

Nobody forces anybody to join Lord's Church. If you do not have Orthodox phronema, you do not belong there.

That's not idolatry, either. Anyhow, actually read the anathemas of the Seventh Ecumenical Council-- they're directed towards the iconoclasts who _destroyed_ icons, asserting they were idols.

Exactly right. Thus, 2nd Nicaea pronounced damnation upon those who wish to obey the Word of God. The Second Commandment forbids offering proskunesis to any image or likeness of anything, anywhere.

@@stephenwright4973 Then why are there several instances in the Old Testament where proskynesis is offered to people without any rebuke?

@@seg162 Proskunesis of people is not forbidden by Exodus 20:4-5. Proskunesis of images of anything in heaven or earth most assuredly is forbidden. Is there any example of offering proskunesis of an image? The only (very tenuous) example that I've heard of is Joshua falling before the Ark (Josh.7:6), but there are several points to consider about the Ark which makes it an unsuitable precedent for venerating images. 1) The Ark was never seen, except by the High Priest. It was perpetually covered. Joshua wasn't offering proskunesis to an "eikon". 2) The Ark was the throne of God upon earth, and the Tabernacle was His dwelling-place among His people. Those who knelt or fell before the Ark were not offering any veneration to the physical/visible vessel, but to Him Who "dwelleth between the cherubim" (2 Kings 19:15; Ps.80:1; Isa.37:16). The Ark was precisely what icons are not: it was the throne of God. 3) The precedent of a visible dwelling/throne of God upon earth was to come to an end (Jer.2:16; John 4:21). 4) I also note that Joshua was rebuked for what he did (Josh.7:10). The precedent of people offering proskunesis to one another is totally irrelevant to the question of of whether proskunesis should be offered to images. The very fact that such a defense is offered by those who endorse 2nd Nicaea, illustrates how weak & dubious the foundation is for icon veneration.

@@seg162 Proskunesis of people is not forbidden by Exodus 20:4-5. But proskunesis of images of anything in heaven or earth most assuredly is forbidden. Is there any example of a godly man, in Old or New Testaments, offering proskunesis to an image? The only (very tenuous) example that I've heard of is Joshua falling before the Ark (Josh.7:6), but there are several points to consider about the Ark which makes it an unsuitable precedent for venerating images. 1) The Ark was never seen, except by the High Priest. It was perpetually covered, or concealed in the innermost room of the Tabernacle. Joshua couldn't have been offering proskunesis to an "eikon" because he couldn't see it. 2) The Ark was the throne of God upon earth, and the Tabernacle was His dwelling-place among His people. Those who knelt or fell before the Ark (or toward the Tabernacle) were not offering any veneration to the physical/visible vessel, or to the building, or to any image. Rather, they were offering proskunesis to the Invisible God Who "dwelleth between the cherubim" (2 Kings 19:15; Ps.80:1; Isa.37:16). They most definitely were not offering proskunesis to the images of the cherubim, through whose images the honor passed to the unseen prototypes of those same cherubim, as I've heard absurdly argued. The Ark was precisely what icons are not: it was the throne of God, invisible but presently dwelling among His people. The 3) The precedent of a visible dwelling/throne of God upon earth was to come to an end (Jer.2:16; John 4:21). There is a reason that the Ark is lost. The precedent of people offering proskunesis to one another is totally, entirely, wildly irrelevant to the question of of whether proskunesis should be offered to *images*. The very fact that this is the argument offered by defenders of 2nd Nicaea, justs proves to me how weak & dubious is the foundation for icon veneration.

@@stephenwright4973 Inherent to your argument is that prostrating to objects is forbidden because the _prostration_ constitutes idolatry. It makes no sense that a prostration _by itself_ to an object would constitute idolatry but a prostration _by itself_ to another person wouldn't. I've also mentioned this elsewhere, but the Second Commandment forbids even the creation of idols, and uses a word that specifically indicates "idol"-- if this is meant, instead, to refer to images in general, then that means God contradicts himself in commanding the creation of the cherubim statues and embroideries, as well as the bronze serpent. Again, it wouldn't matter whether or not they're given any kind of veneration outside of their creation (and they are-- the cherubim are _on_ Ark that is venerated, and all these are in a sacred space which is veneration in its own right; the bronze serpent was lifted up, i.e. "exalted", though certainly not as a god)-- it would still run afoul of the Second Commandment. If your following objection is that these objects weren't meant to be worshipped as though they were gods, and that's the difference, then you've only demonstrated that your argument is based on an assumed conclusion of icons being idols-- rather than any conclusion that they're idols according to the Second Commandment. In that case, this conversation's already done. You've already brought up the Ark of the Covenant. You brought up Joshua falling before it (he wasn't rebuked for it, for the record-- he was like that with the other elders all evening, praying, and God tells him to get up _given that there's work to be done, read the following verses),_ which is what matters-- not that he can see it. That's splitting hairs because he knows what he's bowing towards and is still bowing towards it (you wouldn't argue that a _covered_ icon would make it less idolatrous). *_The Ark was the throne of God upon earth, and the Tabernacle was His dwelling-place among His people_* No, it was designed to be a *_symbol_* of God's throne. God dwelled in the entirety of the Tabernacle, spoke between the cherubim statues on the Ark, and fundamentally dwells everywhere in existence. *_Those who knelt or fell before the Ark were not offering any veneration to the physical/visible vessel, but to Him Who "dwelleth between the cherubim"_* And those who venerate icons don't intend to venerate wood and paint, but rather those depicted. And because we acknowledge that, outside of Christ, the depicted are human beings or angels, whether or not they're worshipped as though they were gods is fundamentally contingent on our conception of them. _In truth, we conceive of them as _*_human beings_*_ who strove with God, and serve as worthy examples of Christian living. That is why they are honored at all. There is no way that they are worshipped when they are honored for their worship of God._

Windows to Heaven. Not literally. Ultimately the question should be about intent; are we worshipping saints, or the Lord?

Does it consider your forefathers being - monkeys.?

(4) Later in the video I say that the reverse is also true, a text is worth a thousand pictures; eg an icon can show Jesus with the woman at the well, but it can't show their conversation. An icon is necessarily much less rich than a text. The church used both.

No one is forced to venerate icons, you are anathematized for regarding them as idols. God does not explicitly prescribe the use of Icons in worship but nor does he prescribe the use of guitars and drums during worship, or bible study. Of course the angel rebukes John. He bowed and worshiped it. Cliches are cliches because they are truths we take for granted

@@Cthuski Incorrect. Veneration is prescribed by Nicaea II. Your second point is irrelevant. My observation about John was in response to Fredrica's point about Sacrifice. There was no sacrifice when John bowed, and yet he was rebuked. I didn't object because of the cliche. I objected because it isn't true, at least at the level of establishing dogma.

@@marcuswilliams7448 "To those who mock and profane the holy images and relics which the holy Church receives as revelations of God’s work and of those pleasing to Him, to inspire their beholders with piety, and to arouse them to follow these examples; and to those who say that they are idols, Anathema!" You are not forced to venerate icons. They are so woven into the tradition that I do struggle to think of a reason one would decline to venerate icons other than regarding the practice as idolatrous. This is, however, distinct from "compulsory" icon veneration. You don't have to. You don't even have to like them. Just don't regard them with hostility. Ok then... Veneration and praise IS necessary to piety. If that can be done through the use of images of beings and events that took place in the created world, why shouldn't we? No prescription is given by God for the use of Icons in worship just like there is no prescription for studying the bible. Yes, no sacrifice is offered. John is rebuked because he worshiped the angel. If bowing implied worship in an of it self it would be redundant to say "and worshiped" Fair enough, but if your problem is that it may be difficult or nigh impossible to interpret icons without some kind of authority to provide context, well I suppose you are right. This is one of the primary concerns orthodox have with protestants regarding the interpretation of scripture. It would be difficult for someone completely naive to the teachings of the church to understand an icon, just as it would be for scripture. Thank God we have both of them and thank God for the Church.

​@@marcuswilliams7448, there are plenty of examples in the Old Testament of people bowing to others as a form of honoring them, not worshiping them. Just because you bow to someone or in front of something that's not mean you are offering or intending that act as worship.

I guess you didn't watch the video.

@@ArchangelIcon I didn’t finish it no, I didn’t have time. What else does she say?

@@cormundum_o You'll have to make the time to find the response to your point if you think it important. ;)

@@ArchangelIcon Well, she has images of Jesus in the background so I'm assuming it isn't the outcome I am expecting.

@@cormundum_o lol... so much guess work! Either watch it or don't. But rather than just posting a quote from the Bible which is dealt with in the video, without having watched it, watch the video and your quote is dealt with there. You may agree with it or not, but your quote simply proves you didn't watch it. 🙂

Based on the things said in your comment, my guess is that you are Seventh Day Adventist. I used to be SDA, so I know why you say these things. For that reason I say this with love and humility. I pray that you can find your way out of this deception. You are reading the Bible through the filter of your ‘Prophet’. These beliefs are not Biblical and are only designed to support the radical ideas of Adventist pioneers of the mid 1800’s. May God bless you.

@ActuallyActual thank you for your insight. I actually found the state of the dead before I had even heard of Ellen White (which, I attended studies for almost a year before her name was even mentioned). I was a Disciple of Christ growing up, a very liberal denomination, everybody flitting off to heaven and haunting us never made sense to me. I read all the rapture series and I was always left with gaping holes of questions. When were you SDA? You mentioned you were evangelical? I work in a school where most everyone is evangelical so I understand that having a different experience understanding the Bible among many others will either break you down or build your desire to share what you know. I see you are just as passionate and eager to learn the way you believe to be the truth as I am. I enjoy listening to other views as I grew up in the church without a understanding of the Bible or who Jesus is until just two years ago when I finally could see how He had been trying to get my attention for so long and had been with me through all my ignorance waiting patiently. Well, I AM still ignorant about history and the theology of all the other religions and Christian denominations even differ so widely. All in all I just want to say that while I don't agree with all your views, I appreciate you feeling strongly enough to make videos in a clear way that if someone else does hear your message they will feel inspired to research more and be led by the Holy Spirit. You also talked about traditions I knew nothing about. I like how you asked common questions/beliefs people have about orthodoxy. It takes a strong character to allow comments on social media. I'm not sure my heart could take it. Lol. God bless you and may He fill you with His Holy Spirit to accomplish the works He has in store for you.

@ActuallyActual thank you for your insight. I actually found the state of the dead before I had even heard of Ellen White (which, I attended studies for almost a year before her name was even mentioned). I was a Disciple of Christ growing up, a very liberal denomination, everybody flitting off to heaven and haunting us never made sense to me. I read all the rapture series and I was always left with gaping holes of questions. When were you SDA? You mentioned you were evangelical? I work in a school where most everyone is evangelical so I understand that having a different experience understanding the Bible among many others will either break you down or build your desire to share what you know. I see you are just as passionate and eager to learn the way you believe to be the truth as I am. I enjoy listening to other views as I grew up in the church without a understanding of the Bible or who Jesus is until just two years ago when I finally could see how He had been trying to get my attention for so long and had been with me through all my ignorance waiting patiently. Well, I AM still ignorant about history and the theology of all the other religions and Christian denominations even differ so widely. All in all I just want to say that while I don't agree with all your views, I appreciate you feeling strongly enough to make videos in a clear way that if someone else does hear your message they will feel inspired to research more and be led by the Holy Spirit. You also talked about traditions I knew nothing about. I like how you asked common questions/beliefs people have about orthodoxy. It takes a strong character to allow comments on social media. I'm not sure my heart could take it. Lol. God bless you and may He fill you with His Holy Spirit to accomplish the works He has in store for you.

@@icanseeclearlynow4355it seems common to not hear Ellen White mentioned initially but the ‘state of the dead’ doctrine is predominantly from her writings. I’ve never been Evangelical. I left the SDA church in 2017 after 37 years. I now attend an Eastern Orthodox Church. It’s great hat you are open to other points of view. You may be interested to learn what Orthodox Christians believe about Death. It’s not at all like Spirits floating around on clouds. Also, if you’re interested look into Church history, it will definitely challenge your beliefs, as it did for me.

first of all, icons venerated in Orthodoxy are not statues. merely two dimensional renditions. secondly, the Bible itself is a icon of the Word. the Logos Jesus Christ himself. the Gospel according to St. John Chapter 1 verse 1. we view the entire text Christologically from Genesis to Revelation. I'm confident you will deny worshiping the Bible, although I suspect many protestants actually do.

Why did the Lord tell to two friends of Job to ask him to pray on their behalf.?

@@johnnyd2383 They were alive. Explain to me why it's okay to pray to the dead? I am seeking a genuine answer.

@@techdivaful That is a typical problem Prots have, but underlying problem comes out of not understanding as to what Lord achieved on the Cavalry. Prots, for some reason, do not see the change in the state of the DEAD before and DEPARTED after (note my change in terms), even though evidences are all over the Bible. To make my answer shorter, He went down into the Hades, destroyed it in the process and liberated souls. Our departed brethren are thus with the Lord, well, alive and are members of our Church Triumphant. Since the Church is ONE, our Church Militant is one with the Church Triumphant and we ask our Saints, who are with the Lord, to intercede on our behalf. Imagine applying for a job and having a friend already working in that company, and asking him to recommend you to the employer. As simple as that. PS: For all of the above there are Biblical references but I was too lazy to type them in. Sorry.

@@techdivaful If your issue with praying to departed saints is that there's "no advocate between us and God except Jesus Christ our Lord", then it doesn't matter whether Job's friends were alive. That said, it's not "no advocate", it's "no mediator", and what the saints-- departed or otherwise-- do for those who ask them is _intercede_ for and with us.