"Jesse I need to anoint your son David to be the next king of Israel, Saul is not a good man."

Or the part where the orthodontics said "it's orthodoxy time" and fixed my teeth all over the place

​@@Account1987-zy2dw better not call Saul

So... they knocked your teeth out and fixed them to the walls?

By the thumbnail, I'm a Methodist apparently.

This made me laugh out loud. Way too real. My reformed church couldn't install motion activated lights in the sanctuary because they turn off 5 minutes into the service

All DENOUNCE the MOCKING of Jesus Christ and the SCRIPTURES!

Wilhelmina mints ;)

@@matthewdekraker8665 I remember the motion activated lights thing being an issue as well - good to know it's not just my lot!

No wait, could anyone please explain this Dutch Calvinist mints thing? Now i’m curious

Are you saying that you're 100% going to heaven? Just asking.

Look, I don't know what church you are and I don't want to argue much so I'll respectufully give you my honest belief. Yes, I will go to heaven because Jesus unlocked it for me. Yet I'm free and capable of rejecting His sacrifice by sinning, so I have to work on that.

@@jozefhorvath7129 If you want to know my church, just ask. So you believe you just have to believe in Jesus, and you will 100% go to heaven?

@@paldennorbu8808 No, I don't believe in Sola fide as a Catholic. Faith without works is dead, as James has written in his epistle. What is your church then?

@@jozefhorvath7129 This I agree with, but nobody can be 100% certain they're going to heaven, so saying "See you in heaven" is incorrect. And I am Eastern Orthodox.

Not really, you only need to look at Church history and read what the Church Fathers wrote, to understand how the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ himself established 2000 years ago.

It's a sticky point because Christianity and the church predates the Bible by many decades. Indeed, most of the early Christians were illiterate anyway.

@@Patrichor777All churches are the Church that he founded 2000 years ago, we just split up.

Well, they split from the Orthodox Church.@@shaansingh6048

@@shaansingh6048 That proves none of them are TRUE Christians.

I like how you put that. I'm looking for a church to join but not exclusively for worship. I love the idea of joining a church that is involved and helps in the community. I feel closer to God when I shake the hand of a stranger and saying "God Bless you" than I do after a service. 🙏

Has your church split from the united methodist church yet. My church is voting in either january or february

What is meant by faith being more important than work? how is faith distinguished from belief in this context? How is it not just work that never leaves your head?

James 2:18

@theviewbotit’s not about lacking good works. It’s about choosing to not do good works.

Of the major denominations, IMO Baptist is the most theologically correct. It sticks closely to the Bible, and is generally conservative theologically and socially. The only thing I may disagree with them about is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit stopped near the end of the 1st century. While the authoritative writings I think stopped then, I see no reason to think the Holy Spirit wouldn't continue to imbue believers with various gifts as He sees fit today, but that is a pretty small different so I would feel comfortable in almost any Baptist church(tho i attend Calvary Chapel, which essentially Baptist but does allow the possibility of Holy Spirit gifts).

@@mattm7798 Thanks, I agree! Baptists also tend to stick with the KJV, which is the best translation IMO. They are also very serious about soul winning and sharing the gospel!

​@@beautifulllstars If you like KJV, then you might also want to check out NASB. It uses more modern language, but it is a more literal translation than KJV.

Why did you do the full baptism?

​​@@beautifulllstars My beliefs also align most with the Baptist church after years of developing my beliefs and learning from many different sources since college. I would definitely say that the KJV Bible is a solid translation, but I think the ESV, and NIV are also really good. But the best is when you do a comparative analysis of all 3, and then also check out the original Greek or Hebrew when you are really looking to understand an important piece of Scripture!

Everyone is human and has the ability to do evil. Believers and non-believers alike

Eastern Orthodoxy Is The One Truth!

@@yourneighbour3309 you clearly never tried NeNe Chicken

@@yourneighbour3309bruh if it was the truth why yall get conquered by Islam

​@@yourneighbour3309Amen ☦️☦️

Basically, Lordship Salvation. Works are necessary in salvation but not necessary in causing salvation. It's a W view

Would like to contrast it with my Catholic view, which is also often misunderstood: For us, faith in Christ also requires believing in the teachings of Christ. Belief in those teachings materializes in works. Saying "Lord, Lord" is not faith. You need to show your faith in your works, just like how Abraham showed it through being willing to sacrifice his son to God. That is how we explain Romans and Jacob both being true.

​@@BornAgainChris Yeah basically EARNING a free gift and maintaining it by doing good works. Totally W moments here

Protestants actually come off as less sympathetic the older I get. And I grew up in a Lutheran country.

As a Methodist, I would add "amen." Entirely biblical.

Possibly. But the huge Trinity difference is arguably more important.

@@Mr_Sarcasum It depends. Some Orthodox don't have a problem with the Filioque per se, but they object to its inclusion in the Creed. Others do consider the Filioque to be a heretical innovation.

@@Mr_Sarcasum There are some orthobros who support the filloque and some eastern Catholics who disagree with it

East and West have generally (but no universally!) agreed upon a trinitarian formulation that satisfies both traditions. While there are other nuanced differences, the most prominent is the papacy.

​@@Mr_Sarcasum Only among hard-line modern Orthodox. Some modern Orthodox agree with the Latin and Greek Fathers that "through the Son" is an acceptable statement of how the Spirit proceeds, and Rome has clarified that this is what the filioque means (CCC 248). As the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote "The Orthodox Church" twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences." The question of papal supremacy is undoubtedly the major point of division between Catholic and Orthodox.

"I have a personal relationship with God" No, you don't. A relationship requires TWO active parts, and your god does exactly nothing. I have no idea what you mean with "manifests in your life", but you are surely not experiencing the presence of some magical being. Hey, after all, gods roam dimensions BEYOND human perception, so anyone claiming they'd experience such being are simply liars. Liars-people claiming things they have no evidence for. Liars like you. I bet you have zero evidence for any of your god-related claims.

So you are a heretic?

@@arandomchannel1334 So you’re God? People like you are the reason organized religion repulses many followers. I am more devout than you hypocrites. God talks to me directly. When’s the last time He spoke to you?

@@arandomchannel1334 it’s people like you that make organized religion corrupt and revolting. To you church is a license to sin. I prefer not to be surrounded by hypocrites. Thank you. If that makes me heretical, then you should let God know. I read His word daily, and live by its command. In return, He loves, and talks to me in many ways. He is pleased with me, and the metamorphosis I have undergone in His presence. I pray you can feel Him work in your life, as I do in mine.

@@arandomchannel1334 I prefer to see myself as someone who has a personal relationship with God.

Former atheist myself, and you are so right. I used to believe the common cultural assumption that it was ridiculous, outdated fables...watching Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures totally blew my mind...Blessings to you

It's not "rich". The division is just another piece of evidence that it's all just man made, keep coping

@@T.D.F.M No it just shows you that Satan wants to keep you far from the truth. That’s why there’s different denominations to confuse you. Salvation is simple believe in Jesus Christ and you are saved. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” John 6:47 “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.” John 3:16 “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Romans 4:5 “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8~9 “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” John 10:28 “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:40 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24 “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Acts 13:39

​@@qwnpngwn672thank God you're no more athiest

@@qwnpngwn672 Jordan Peterson is basically atheïst. He just thinks you should believe in a religion (preferably christian) because he thinks you'll behave better. When pressed on whether he actually believes biblical stories such as the resurrection, he never confirms this. It's a cowards way out imho. If you don't believe, just say so.

That's more of a Wesleyan thing than a Pentecostal belief. Some Pentecostals carried entire sanctification over from Methodism, but it's largely ignored today. And the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination, has never taught entire sanctification. Wesleyan churches (Methodist, Nazarenes) in recent years have begun to restate the teaching of entire sanctification in terms of total consecration to Jesus as opposed to "never sinning again".

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b9inlLVpzLineoE.htmlsi=u3DrF-rfutn4BIsY @@fredjimbob2962

@@fredjimbob2962Yes 👍🏻

@@fredjimbob2962Isn't that what everyone thinks about their own beliefs? Why hold a belief you think isn't right?

​@fredjimbob2962 Clearly, you are uneducated in Catholic theology. If you think Catholics believe only Catholics can go to heaven, you are mistaken. Read Vatican II if you are actually interested in educating yourself.

​@@fredjimbob2962you just think that we dont have evidence lol

It is better to ask, "Is apostolic sussession necessary for ordaining pastors?" than, "Does the Church need to be lead by Bishops?"

@@christopherboyd9855 I thought that both Lutheran and Anglican churches necessitated apostolic succession.

@@christopherboyd9855They hold that belief in Swedish churches at least.

@CheekyHaggis We don't necessitate it but it is cool to have. I'm a Lutheran pastor without apostolic sussession. It would have been cool if I had it, but even though I don't that doesn't negate my ordination. So good on Sweden for having it. Article 28 covers this a bit, but the Solid Declaration and other documents covers such in more detail. Looking at the history of Lutheranism in America before 1776 also bring to light why apostolic sussession was encouraged but not mandatory.

A better question to separate Anglicans and Lutherans, "Believe in unifying under a single Bishop?" Anglicans have the Bishop of Canterbury.

Yes, helped me continue to stay away from these bigoted people!

@@Ex_christian luckily we worship God, not people.

@@04kilik40 which god? There are thousands that man has made up including the one in the Bible that Christians follow.

Then tell every denomination to re unite again. Start with Catholic and Orthodox

exactly I fr had no idea that we were the only ones who didn’t baptize babies 💀 (besides pentecostal ofc)

How do you think I feel lol grew up anglican and realized I'm presbyterian lmaooo

​@@michaeltagor4238Thats the thing about anglicans - they dont know who they even are 😂

@@israelisreall nonsense, you don't choose to be gay.

​@@Ari-to3qmAs a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (often shortened to LDS or Mormon) we also don't baptize babies because we believe that being baptized should be a display of agency. It's cool seeing that another Church shares that position

Yes. Whilst some Pentecostals think tongues are essential, it’s probably a minority belief.

Yes, and most also reject the notion that you must on purpose try to completely cease from sinning ever.

I mean, it should be everyone's goal, but it's not a part of salvation to do so.

The correct translation is not speaking in tongues, but speaking in languages. The Greek word for tongue is "γλωσσα" pronounced "glossa". But glossa is also the word for language. This is meant to refer to a phenomenon where two people can communicate with one another without knowing each other's language. I speak to you in Greek, and you can understand fully what I am saying, you then answer me in English and I understand you fully (assuming I do not know any English). I have heard a couple of personal testimonies from foreign speakers who were able to communicate with newly canonized Greek Orthodox saints by speaking in languages.

@@stevepa999 you’re wrong.

Christ established one Church united by the apostles. If your church is not apostolic, you are in a false religion. "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." [Matthew 18:6]

@@edukaeshn We adhere to the Nicene Creed, and we absolutely believe in the holy lowercase “c” catholic and apostolic church.

​@@edukaeshn There's 2 definitions of apostolic, one is the authority of the apostles in the New Testament, the other is pretty much the authority of the Pope. I'd say that yes, you need to follow the first one to be part of the Church, I don't think the second one is a requirement, or even necessarily good. And if you're referring to the second one, that same verse could very well be put against you if you're wrong.

@@Alex_1A Stop playing word games. "But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." [Matthew 5:37]

@@edukaeshn Now I'm not sure if you're doing this in good faith anymore. That verse is in the middle of statements about law, so there's that, and some questions take more than a yes or no, such as when the same sentence could be asking 2 questions as what happened here. I think these conversations are good to have, we need to keep each other accountable, but they need to be in good faith to work effectively.

If you like this topic there's a channel named ready to harvest that goes into way more details about various denominations and their relationship with each other. Usefulcharts also did a great video on that topic.

Of course not, but that is not a case against denominations. In heaven, if we have a question, God will be right there to answer it. Down here on Earth, we have to interpret things for ourselves, and as long as we still have the essentials, it is ok to disagree, and form denominations.

​@mrjohnson1627 the church is the bride of Jesus. So the church is what interprets what the bible means For example you and your wife. who is more qualified to explain to me what you actually mean when you speak? Some random person that heard you, or your wife?

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is demonic. Christ began one Church united by the apostles..if your church is not apostolic, you are in a false religion.

Exactly, it’s not a must. I will say there are some Pentecostals who do believe hardcore that you have to but a majority that I know would disagree

And the whole part of not being able to sin anymore at the end of a Pentecostal is untrue. We all fall short of the glory of God.

Why is there 0 apologetics around tongues? I grew up in a church that spoke tongue, non-denom. I said to myself, if this is real, it should be translatable. I said to myself, if this is real, it should glorify God and be useful. In the end, after reading what happened in the Bible, regarding tongues and seeing the church. I saw that in the Bible, people understood the person speaking tongues, and it was useful and it was glorifying God. Yet in the church, the only people that can "understand it" seem to be using their imaginations, as the words seemingly mean nothing on their own. It seems also vain, and meaningless as we all speak the same language.

​@danielbrowniel I agree 100%. The entire modern pentecostal movement is based a misunderstanding of how tongues worked in the NT.

when he said, "Lets start with the Baptists!" I winced and said, "here we go!" He did well explaining our faith though! I think he could have emphasized the Priesthood of the Believer aspect of the faith some, but he hit the broad brushstrokes.

You are right, because Jesus founded a Church, not a book. Not only that, He gave the Church authority to bind things on Earth like in Heaven, and the Church got the keys to Heaven. And Jesus guaranteed that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. The Church many, many years later decided that it would be a good idea to compile a book as a tool, one of many tools to help follow Christ. And Protestants came and put this text above the Church, as if the Christian faith could be limited in a mere text, they decreased the number of books included in the compilation, and proceeded to deny any way to follow Jesus that is not explicitly stated in their version of the book. And it only led to continuous branched divisions and stone throwing among Christians. It's madness.

technically scripture (OT) existed before the apostolic church, the church just compiled scripture into what we know as the bible. All scripture is God breathed so yes God did give us the scriptures and He also gave us the church

@@neochris2the jews were compiling scriptures (not in book form) long before the apostolic church. you can keep trying to credit the church for everything but it’s God who gave us the scriptures and preserved them. The Church is also not limited to the confines of your institution but it rather encompasses all true believers everywhere.

Jesus founded a Church, and God gave men his Word through the Bible so that we can learn and understand. I would rather believe entirely on the words of the Apostles than submitting to a tradition that they not only did not express, but that directly contradicts them (see indulgences). The Bible is not "a mere text".@@neochris2

I think the first question is very interesting to me. Yes, the Church came before the New Testament of the Bible, but the Bible is our main resource from back then to know the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. I think the question should not necessarily be which has more authority, but if their should be a "church government" or not. The Pope is not The Church. Catholic leaders have done many messed up things, and so have some of the "saints." Should we listen to them when things they say don't line up with scripture? The Protestants opened it up for the common man to determine the truth for themselves through scripture instead of just listening to "church authority." The protestant movement opened us up to interpret scripture for ourselves and believe what we think it says and is right. I think the difference is that Protestants believe the Church is all people who believe in Jesus and follow Him, whereas the Catholics believe the Church is those who believe in and follow all of the church fathers and leadership. (I'm using the words "Catholic" and "Protesant" loosely to describe those on each side of this first question.)

Not literally, but by being divinized, that’s why St. Athanasius said “God became man that man might become God”

It's a W belief as a Protestant

So, we become united to God through His energies, which are God, We don't become God in essence but we become participators in God.

But mormons also think that you can become a "God"

@@francocarrieri9625 Bro the Mormons' version is beyond cursed. Do not compare that to the gem of theosis

Currently in the process of leaving the SDA church and going to a Baptist one as well! It’s been absolutely mind-boggling seeing the lengths and mental gymnastics people go through to defend EGW’s writings and alleged visions. Praying for my family and former church family that’s still being deceived by that church 🙏

They're basically the same according to this video?? I don't see any big difference other than the day of worship

@@sparkstudies1675 Nope. I recommend watching Allen Parr’s video(s) on Adventist beliefs. They’d like you to believe their denomination is just Baptist theology with Sabbath and veggiemeat lol. I don’t know if Redeemed Zoomer will ever do a deep dive on some of these denominations but many KZfaqrs have so the info is out there if you’re interested :)

SDA is correct on the afterlife

@hardworkinggymnerd1964 Brother this a weak argument against the church. Either the SDA teaching are correct or they aren't. If you left the church because of Ellen White, Becoming a baptist isn't the answer. There are a bunch of beliefs of the SDA church that a baptist couldn't believe in which would all have to magically become false because the writings of a woman in the 1800s are being questioned.

There is nothing more dangerous than a religious convert.

Thank you for converting to the true faith. I’m glad you have left your heretic ways

Atheists don't exist.

​@@edukaeshn You don't seem. To respect. Others beliefs

@@Maharlikan_Federal_Empire I don't respect erroneous beliefs.

@@edukaeshn however I do, I have non Christian friends, and they're good.

@@Maharlikan_Federal_Empire If you "respect" one's downfall, you are not a friend.

I pray that you will become a believer. I was agnostic my entire life until just recently!

I pray that you will become an atheist. lol.

I've been wondering if I should become Noahide instead of agnostic as I still believe there is a God but don't believe Jesus is the Messiah or that has kingdom ever came. No one ever talks about Jesus running around saying the kingdom of God is at hand and it's been 2,000 years. Catholics saying the kingdom.is the church just seems too convenient. I still like his parables though.

@@beautifulllstars I appreciate the sentiment but me converting to Christianity would be like you converting to voodoo.

“Agnostic” is a Greek term. The Latin term for it is “ignoramus.”

i agree

The SDA wobble from unitarian at their founding to trinitarian in (I think) the 1950s is one of the odder changes of denominational belief out there. I don't see how anyone can regard the Jehovah's Witnesses, the LDS church or the Christian Scientists as credibly Christian, personally. They've all simply added too many novelties of belief, and I tend to give the definition of Christian as much latitude as possible. (e.g. SDA I do think are Christian, though a bit, well, weird). I suppose the argument all those groups would make is they've somehow "restored" Christianity, meaning everybody else are the ones who aren't Christian. Fair enough, though all are in a rather dubious position in terms of any kind of historical review. Kind of like the Alawites and Ahmadis in Islam. They think they're Muslim, most Muslims disagree. And Islam being Islam, well, we know how that plays out in Syria and Pakistan.

@@thelasthandbook6704 I’ve heard that position before. Then again I’ve also known protestants and catholics who, in the modern day, argue the other isn’t christian. I’m agnostic so I don’t really have a stake in the matter. The way I see it they’re fellow Abrahamic religions that are, at the very least, descended from protestant christian traditions. So on the tree in the video they would have their own branches, whether or not one considers them “truly christian”. They sure call themselves christian, at the very least. Of course, an exploration of Jewish and Islamic denominations would be more like the roots and sister tree of the metaphorical branching tree of christian denominations. I think LDS, Jeovah’s witnesses, etc. are more closely related to protestant Christianity (at least in the USA) than islam or maybe even judaism, just given the history and cultural proximity.

and Islam 🤣

There are also a ton of smaller Protestant denominations of that float somewhere between Baptist and Methodist. (Saying Baptists are unique in not baptizing infants for example is very incorrect.) Usually they draw their tenets from some blend of Wesleyan and Calvinist theology.

Come back home to the Catholic Church

Warning! You will be dissapointed in eastern orthodox service if you are used to a western one. They tend to sing everything and it is only the priests/choir who are at voice. It will be priests walking around and singing prayers which you will have hard time understanding.

Keep in mind that God wrote a symphony, but some people are not good violinists. That doesn't mean that God's symphony is bad.

Also be aware that the Methodist church in America is going through a rather turbulent time right now.

I hope you check out a nice, traditional Lutheran Church.

The born again experience is just being saved. That’s it, you believe your saved done instant salvation because it’s literally a free gift.

I have a similar story where I was raised christian and I can't pinpoint the moment or even a year when I was saved, at one point I then decided that I want to get baptised, when I was sure in my faith and my parents had also made sure I understood what being baptised means.

From a Lutheran perspective, we really de-emphasize the "experience" aspect of salvation. At the final judgment, God isn't going to look to your salvation "experience". People experience being born again very differently. For Paul, it was a real night-and-day difference. For Timothy on the other hand, the faith was passed down and he grew up in faith (2 Timothy 1:5). We don't have this crazy conversion experience for Timothy. But it doesn't make Timothy's faith any "less" than Paul's. Our Lord said that faith even as small as a mustard seed could move mountains. Also remember the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. To the son who had always served and obeyed, who didn't have this crazy conversion experience that the prodigal son had, the father nonetheless said, "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours."

You can be born and raised into Christian cultures and rulesets, but upon knowing the gospel, you have to make the decision for yourself to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Christianity is not a country or government - you can not be put into it at birth, and no one can declare you a Christian against your will. The entirety of Romans chapter 10 explains this, drawing parallels between the Christians of the first church, and the Jews of the Old Testament.

@@jncp5965 We should be careful not to mistake "faith" for a decision we make. It is the Holy Spirit who creates faith, and since it is the Holy Spirit rather than our own will, any decision at a given point in time is not really relevant, as it may or may not represent when faith was given to us, and is not the cause of that faith. You can be brought up as a baby into the new covenant of grace by baptism, in the same way babies were brought up into the old covenant by circumcision on their 8th day of life. That is a precious gift to be given, but like all gifts, it can be rejected by the baptized later in life, through their own decision to abandon their birthright (parable of the prodigal son). Faith is a trust in the Lord for salvation, and we know for a fact that infants can have this trust, directly from scripture, meaning that the holy spirit can and does work in babies even absent any visible capability for "making a decision". "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God." -- Psalms 22:9-10

Filoque was added to combat Spanish Arianism and emphasize Jesus oneness with the father, and was never intended to change the ultimate meaning. 😢

@@misterkittyandfriends1441 yes it was added centuries later. Redeemed Zoomer seems to think the Filioque was in the orignal text. John 14:16 and 14:26 shows that the spirit proceeds from the father alone through Christ. Redeemed zoomer is flat out wrong. He can take the unbiblical route, I don’t care. But he is very ill-informed on church history and seems to only listen to Gavin Ortlund on the matter

​@@ItsThatGuy1989 That verse does not mean that the Holy Spirits proceeds from the Father, but rather that the Father is the one to send him to the world. John 14:16 says nothing about how the Holy Spirit came to be, just how he will be sent into the world.

@@rafexrafexowski4754 the early church fathers at the council of Nicaea disagree it appears. And the text points to the spirit coming from the father. Show me where it says the spirit proceeds from the son

But he didn't say, that the Holy Spirit didn't proceed from him. You can't get an argument out of silence. The Holy Spirit does proceeds from the Father, and the Son.

Well, when the Bible is myth, it’s hard to interpret the Bible when Christian’s make so much crap up.

I mean, the church put the Bible together originally. Before the council of Nicea there wasn't consensus on which books were divinely inspired. And to this day, Catholics include a couple extra, though it's a pretty minor difference. There's a similar split in Judaism between Beta Israel (the Ethiopian Jews) and the others - the Ethiopians have Enoch iirc.

@stardorminey9799 I agree with you. I'm just saying that protestants have a very difficult time comprehending the fact that their interpretation if scripture is just one of many interpretations. They present the issue like the Church (Orthodox, Romam Catholic, etc) are ignoring parts of the Bible in favor of the Church decisions. That is not the case.

​@voxelsofsorrow That's not quite accurate. I was surprised to learn recently that the idea of the Canon being set at Nicea was an invention of Voltaire. Not sure when the Canon was actually set, though I know there was a proposed Canon nearly identical to the current predating nicea by centuries.

@@Placeboshotgun the canon was basically set by 150 AD. Many of the second century fathers speak of it. Nicea was about heretical writings that had to be denounced, not "creating the Bible". Heresies such as Arianism, Gnosticism (a religion that goes as far back as Heraclitus) were being accepted by a largely illiterate church and it was necessary to refocus the church leaders, not parishioners, on what was acceptable for teaching.

Come to lutheranism❤✝️

Don't leave. You'll be giving up more than you realize. What are your issues with the idea of the intercession of the saints?

Lutherans kept everything great about Catholicism and reformed the issues!

@@JML42 I feel like nowadays people pray more to Mary and Saints than to the Holy Spirit. I'm from Poland and during summer we have a harvest festival. The figures of Mary used in the festival are very similar to the slavic goddes of harvest and nature Mokosh. It's like we literally took the old gods and changed them to Mary and Saints. Also treating paintings of Mary like they are magical and they cure you when they should be just a symbol.Taking parts of the dead people to make relics. It just feels wrong.

And it's not like I want to leave. My family are Catholics and I don't want to hurt them. I just have issuses and it's hard because church teaches that dogmas are holy and you shouldn't question them.

this 💗

That is a big mistake though. Many Lutheran churches also ordain women, which is another big mistake.

And nordic Lutheran pastors are fully compatible with Anglican ones.

@@jaskamattila4481 So is your profile pic.

What do you think about the popes actions lately?

@@MatthewPatel-hx4ci I have openly stated he should be removed and privately I have said much worse.

@@MatthewPatel-hx4ci You can't blame the entire church for the actions of a single person

​@@doinic09that's right but we are responsible for our beliefs. I'm Catholic but I'm considering joining the Orthodox Chruch because I also consider that we can't be guided by a single man (the pope) who have had the highest authority throughout the history but a net of bishops all of them working in equality and humble

Thank GOD for you.

Same with me

Jesus is king! He can change your life friend.

What’s funny is it’s also informative as a Christian! The different denominations can get so confusing sometimes.

@@zacharydelgado2279 I am not interested in religion as long as it cannot be directly proven to me.

Irrefutable evidence is needed

Because Anglicans accept such a wide variety of beliefs, almost any denomination can fit inside Anglicanism.

@@Nonz.M And then Baha'i kicks that accept-wide-variety up another notch. I know Baha'i is not typically thought of as having a Christian denomination aspect, but given that they do incorporate the Bible, including the New Testament, it is arguable. But then the flowchart would have to start even before the Bible v Church question.

So which is true in there totality, Anglicans or Scandinavian Lutherans, or maybe one of the other 50000+ protestant denominations???

@@peterxuereb9884 Lutherans.

@Nonz.M How are they true??? Can God inspire others to contradict the Bible, which is the inspired word of God???

I love your analogy for Jesus reaching to save us but that He still allows us the choice to accept Him (i.e. He doesn't force us to be saved, despite Him wanting us to be with Him). I have found a lot of clarity, understanding, and peace in Christ in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As you mentioned the importance of both the Bible and the Church, I have found a great perspective here.

@@samueldevenport123 same. I recommend checking it out. I think the balance of both free will and grace makes the most sense there.

I will pray for you, thank you for being so kind to theists, it's hard to find such wholesomeness online.

Why do you find it “fascinating”?

@@adewey33 mostly because it involves a lot of history and philosophy. I also like lists of things or of categories, which most religions have as well

@@Skivv5 thank you but why are you praying for me?

@@oddlysomethingEveryone deserves to be prayed for :) I will be praying for you to find happiness.

yea that is a MAJOR error. it makes me wonder about his intentions.

Oh look, another schism.

I've met a few pentecostals who do believe you need tongues as evidence of salvation, so he probably got it from someone like that.

Oneness Pentecostal is a group who believes tongues are a requirement but they are small minority. id guess maybe 1% of Pentecostals believe you need to speak in tongues to be born again. it would be like saying Pentecostals believe in snake handling by using snake handling churchs as an authority. So he either didnt do his research or has an agenda. either way it makes me question everything else he said in this video. big thumbs down from me. @@phantompenguintgl1652

Yeah there are different branches with Pentecostals even. I’d lean towards that speaking in tongues is important, maybe not you going to hell if you don’t, but it’s God’s spirit speaking through you, thus important. It’s just one more way to get connected to God. I do however disagree that anyone can ever stop sinning completely, idk where that part came from. We are all flesh, flesh is lustful, and there will always be a battle between flesh and spirit. Hope this helps someone

No, it is literally the Body and Blood of Christ. But you are correct that the accidents (that is, the appearances) do remain the same.

​@@josephdemary4048 A distinction that the first comment makes (I believe) is that the disciples didn't literally eat his flesh and drink his literal blood

yes the catholic church it's self says we literally eat and drink Christ's body and blood. see CCC 1413. What you said about the essence of the host becoming Christ and the accidents remaining unchanged is correct, but the body really "is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity" (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

@@irok1 I'm correcting him because he's wrong about this "The Catholic Church itself does not say we literally eat and drink Christ's body and blood." I am also a Catholic. Catholics believe that the disciples did literally eat Jesus's body and blood.

Christ made the Church to be united by the apostles.

Are you part of the actual pentecostal church (Helluntaikirkko) or part of the pentacostal revival (helluntaiherätys) inside the Lutheran church?

I live in America but I go to a Jamaican Pentecostal church I can verify that that was also news for me I never heard that before

Its called Perfectionism, it's not something that you'll generally hear, most consider it heretical. In my 30 years of Christianity I've never met a church that holds to it. It is NOT a mainstream Pentacostal belief.

Yahusha tells us to "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" Matthew 5:48 "This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin." I John 1:5-7 "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked." I John 2:3-6

It's a form of survivorship bias. We never talk about the things we agree on because there is nothing left to say about them. Yet arguments about our differences are loud and overrepresented. But we really are more similar than it seems at first glance.

Yep, the amount that Christians believe and agree on is huge. That's one way you can tell when you're dealing with a cult. They don't agree on the fundamentals, who Good is, who Jesus is and what he came to do.

Yep, was part of the Lutheran cult as a kid when forced into it and confirmation. Then dad became a Lutheran Lay minister Liar. The amount of mental abuse from Christian’s is astounding! So glad I don’t believe in the make believe crap and I stay away from Christians…..made life so much better.

Hi! I’m a Baptist so we are very similar. I have also always been told that no one is perfect and we can never be a part from Christ. I think this whole idea of entire sanctification come from misrepresenting glorification. Glorification has full and complete sanctification when we die and see Christ face to face!

@aaronolafson6362