Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and your world!

@josephsaab7208

2 жыл бұрын

Love your channel!

Dear Hank, I am so happy for you! You have so much to lose in this world by this change but you are being faithful to honor the gospel and your Lord in Spirit ,Truth and Life. Your standing with Jesus is what matters. It is wonderful to see a bright twinkle in your eyes for the first time in a long while.

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

Ava Rey : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@sejuanisupportonly7385

4 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry Cherry-picking is not really the way of truth ... do try to represent the full (hi)story of the matter next time :)

@mattbellacotti

4 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell we never have left tradition, unlike like Protestants. They’ve made man the image and idol via the sermon, their “churches” which are no more than glorified auditoriums. And irreverent ECM as “worship”. We Orthodox hear your argument all the time and it’s weaker than a stack blin in the wind. Read exodus on how Moses was instructed to make the bronze serpent. Or how about the ark of the covenant? Images aren’t forbidden. That’s actually a Muslim notion. And guess what they become Muslim via a “prayer” much like Protestants do. If you adhere to Protestantism you adhere to heresy and error. Lastly we Orthodox don’t “bow to the icon”. It’s a way of us reminding ourselves of the reward of eternal life God promises for us (saints) and due to whom our love and worship is directed (Christ). We have icons of Christ and all the saints to give a depiction of the reality of eternal life, and what Christ promises. If you have issues with that get rid of any realistic depictions of Christ you may have. Or any Christian movies for that matter. (Most are terrible anyways). While you’re at it get rid of photos of your family and loved ones. You can’t smile at them or feel anything for them. Sound ridiculous? Then you know how wrong and false your opinion of us and our icons are. Guess what? Before the Bible was able to be mass produced (printing press didn’t happen till late early 1500’s) icons were used to depict the live of Christ and the Old Testament saints. Iconoclastic views are anti scriptural. Final note. Slandering your brothers in Christ and those around you is a sin. What happened to judge ye not? Or how about the parable of the Pharisee and the publican? Don’t be a Pharisee.

@djnv4702

4 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell dear one, you are so very uninformed. I was once a reformed Protestant and what you are saying is just nonsense. The seventh ecumenical council addressed this misunderstanding. Please look into it. Also consider studying the ancient church, the early church and the church councils because those men in those councils were Orthodox-they were the very men guided by the Holy Spirit to canonize the scripture you read to this day.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

DJ NV : The (second) 7th Council of 787 is in the Middle Ages, not the early church. 1. The Word of God trumps unbiblical religious traditions. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. The “orthodox” church is a semi-pagan medieval sect that broke with the tradition of the early church.

Orthodoxy is the greatest secret that is hidden from the world. I'm proud to be Orthodox, having found the true light.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

James Armstrong : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@jamesarmstrong6008

4 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry I disagree with you, but that's fine. I will continue to hold to my faith and be ready to stand before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ and let Him pronounce the verdict.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

James Armstrong : You’ll have to answer for why you turned from the truth to embrace idolatry.

@jamesarmstrong6008

4 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry Definitely not to you. You may contine to believe as you wish to. I will continue with my own. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

@@jamesarmstrong6008 " 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly prohibits making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

Brother Hank, I'm so happy for you. I'm an Anglican Priest but have a great respect for Orthodoxy. When I heard that Bott Radio Network fired you for converting I posted on facebook that I will never listen to Bott again. You are one of the best Bible teachers I have ever heard and thank you so much for your ministry. I have been a follower of Jesus since 1970 and I was taught a lot of heresy in my early years as a Christian. I have been on a similar journey as yourself. I also discovered Holy Orthodoxy to be the original One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church but the Lord has me laboring in the vineyard of an Hispanic speaking Anglican Church. If God ever calls me to retire from full time ministry, I will almost certainly go to Orthodoxy. There is no way I could ever go to Rome or any of the heretics in Protestantism. I am so happy for you, Hank. Thank you for dedicating your life to the service of our Lord Jesus Christ and thank you for your loving and generous spirit. When Bott fired you because you wanted to get closer to Jesus that showed me what those Evangelical heretics are really like in their hearts. I'm right there with you in spirit, brother, and I am so glad you found Orthodoxy as you spiritual home here on earth. I wish you the best always, Love in Christ Jesus, Fr. Allen+.

@yeoberry

6 жыл бұрын

Learn some church history: 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

@yeoberry

6 жыл бұрын

+Amor Paz: Since the early church was strictly opposed to icons and now the "Orthodox church" has them as a central part of their worship, the only conclusion is that "Orthodoxy" really arose in AD 787, at the (second) Seventh Ecumenical Council, when they rejected the Apostolic tradition and embraced pagan practices. They are a semi-pagan, medieval sect.

@rev.j.rogerallen9328

6 жыл бұрын

Warren Goss not the Anglican Church in North America of which I am a part. Google the ACNA. We renounce homosexual marriage and the practice of it.

@rev.j.rogerallen9328

6 жыл бұрын

yeoberry so the, the Apostolic tradition was lost between A.D. 787 and A.D. 1517? It that correct?

@rev.j.rogerallen9328

6 жыл бұрын

Mike Ordo are you in either of these Orthodox group?

Amen!!!. I am constantly searching. You are someone that I will continue to return to. Thank you God Bless you!

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

Well done. As an Orthodox Christian I find myself explaining the history of the faith to Protestants. Most of them have not heard of Eastern Orthodoxy and most seem intrigued but indifferent. However, there are some who want a deeper relationship with Christ and enter Orthodoxy as a “coming home” of their personal faith.

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

Paul Cooper : Be sure to honestly tell them it is a medieval sect that followed pagan traditions and broke away from the tradition of the early church. The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@eleftheria9179

5 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell You write again and again about the synod of Elvira.That specific synod was a rejected local synod and not at all ecoumenical.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

Ελευθερία Έρη : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@johnsambo9379

2 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry You answer it total crap perpetuated by Satanic Catholics.

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnsambo9379 : 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

Hank, Bless You Brother and your conversion to God’s Bride, the Holy Orthodox Church.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

Paul Hudson : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@KennethSmith-zs5cq

3 жыл бұрын

The bride of Christ are those bought by the blood of Christ not a particular denomination

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

I've been a Bible Answer Man listener on-and-off clear back to the Dr. Walter Martin days. Won't stop now, thats for sure. Keep bringin' it Hank and staff!!!!

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

the best ever most noblest Apologetic Hank Hanegraaff

I wish that Hank's response offered a clearer picture, contrasting and comparing Eastern Orthodoxy with Evangelical Christianity or even Protestantism. It didn't seem like the question was fully answered? Did I miss something?

@BibleAnswerMan

6 жыл бұрын

Here is something Hank did with respect to that Q: www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ CRI Staff

@Febrile1

4 жыл бұрын

@2centavos He is *highly, deeply impacted* !

@robertjames6317

3 жыл бұрын

Nope besides referencing theosis, he dodged the distinctives and basically implied it wasn't important and we should just come together and embrace "mere christianity."

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertjames6317 : 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@AA-gw6wd

2 ай бұрын

@@yeoberryvery strong words, what do you think that having these “icons” will do to the Christian that you believe is harmful? They will inevitably worship them instead of God Himself? But why would they do that? And why can’t the images aid in the worship? I have a picture of my wife in my wallet, I’m I in danger of forgetting my actual wife in favor of this photo? How is your reasoning differant than this? Let’s make your argument stronger?

There are great series of books all about the Orthodox faith by Thomas Hopko which outlines everything about our faith from the design of the church, our traditions, fasting, liturgy etc everything is done in accordance with the bible.

@jimmytj6313

6 жыл бұрын

Wish you the best. God is merciful.

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

@Daughter of Tryggvi : The Council of Elvira proves that the early church strictly prohibited icons. So any church that uses icons broke away from the early church.

@andys3035

2 жыл бұрын

Fr. Hopko is a great resource!

fascinating

Beautiful beautiful. Amen

hank I am happy for u to become an orthodox. you will like it if you come to ethiopioa and visit the early orthodox churches and know about orthodoxy in ethiopioa.

i'm a roman catholic with good relations to the Orthodox Church and it's life. Hanegraaff's answer here is very good and I truly appreciate his honesty. The most important in the end is prayer and the sacraments, which is the means of Theosis for Eastern Christians and Western Christians.

@yeoberry

6 жыл бұрын

The HISTORICAL RECORD shows that the early church strictly forbade icons. The Council of Elvira said images aren’t even allowed in churches so they don’t become icons. Origin and Eusebius (“the father of iconoclasm”!) wrote that the incarnation can’t be portrayed in images and that only pagans made images. Epiphanius tore down a curtain with an image and told the presbyter images are not allowed. THAT’S the historical record. There is absolutely no historical records of anyone in the early church supporting icons. The “Orthodox” are a breakaway sect from the Apostolic tradition. They lied to you.

@andys3035

2 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry a break away would be a 16th century Baptist church

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

@@andys3035 : The early church strictly prohibited icons.

@andys3035

2 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry Tell that to all the martyrs in the catacombs who had icons in their underground worship.

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

@@andys3035 : You're lying. There are no "icons" in the catacombs. The early church strictly prohibited icons.

Hank, my father is a godly Wesleyan minister. He raised me listening to you. I had to step away from the church after the election in 2016. The church backed a guy that said he didn't need Jesus to forgive him because he has nothing that needs forgiving. This denies the father and the son, and he is an Antichrist. But, instead of abstaining and being content with their citizenship in the heavenly kingdom, the voted for an antichrist. I was burnt out and needed a break. When you became EO I was intrigued. I started attending an EO church near me before we got locked down. Your program will be the only reason I get back into the church and a relationship with Jesus, and it will be in the EOC. If it happens I thank you. If it doesn't, I thank you for standing up for your conviction and following what you see as true, despite the economic impact it has on you.

@parkjob

2 жыл бұрын

I remember when trump said that smh lol

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

I love, love, love the mystery. The American Evangelicals have made an idol out of certitude. When we do this we oftentimes end up having to eat proverbial crow.

You mentioned the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist but what about the real presence of Christ in the believers?

@BibleAnswerMan

4 жыл бұрын

That goes without mentioning. Jesus is Emmanuel (God with us) and He is with us always (Matt. 1:23; 28:20). The Son of God bears the divine attribute of omnipresence, which means He possesses simultaneous immediate access to all coordinate points in universe.

This is gold!!

Coming in very late! I really liked the part where in EOC they say "we do not know". Myself I am opposed to aligning with a "sect" or "denomination" but when an organisation is willing to admit they do not know I see that as a step in the right direction! For clarity on my stance I reject any "denomination" that makes a doctrine out of something the scriptures do not say. I am not saying the EOC does not do this as I have not examined this sect in a way as to make such a determination, I just enjoy hearing Hank make this point, and if that standard can be found throughout the EOC that would be a feather in their cap. IMO

@BibleAnswerMan

9 ай бұрын

🙏

I don't think he answered the question, but defended his conversion. By the way, if he still holds to the same fundamentals, why is it called a conversion? For instance, one would typically not call it a conversion to go from a church in one Protestant denomination to a church another Protestant denomination unless that person believed the first church or denomination was teaching a false gospel or serious heresy.

@olegcherkasky2755

3 жыл бұрын

The orthodox church considers all other forms of Christianity heresy. They don't acknowledge Protestant or catholic churches.

Have you found yourself becoming increasingly more Christlike in the Eastern Orthodox faith (moreso than Protestantism)? I've been to two services and I'm starting to get intrigued. How are people converted in the church (e.g., families raising children in the faith) with a lack of Gospel preaching (Penal Substitutionary Atonement)? Genuinely curious.

@BibleAnswerMan

2 жыл бұрын

It is inaccurate to make too radical a divine on the theology of the atonement that distinguishes East and West. Timothy (Kallistos) Ware explains: “Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west-particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (?1033-1109)-has tended to rather think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms, as an act of satisfaction designated to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father. Yet these contrast must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western writers, have applied judicial and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west from the 1930s onwards there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality, and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity [United Kingdom, Penguin Books,1963], 223.). Hank offers common answers to questions about Eastern Orthodoxy here > www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ and www.equip.org/orthodoxy/ If you are really interested in learning more about becoming/being Eastern Orthodox read Know the Faith by Welcome to the Orthodox Church by Frederica Mathewes-Green > www.equip.org/product/welcome-orthodox-church/ Michael Shanbour > www.equip.org/product/know-the-faith-a-handbook-for-orthodox-christians-and-inquirers/

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@FPHELPS.177

10 ай бұрын

what is your denomination@@yeoberry

I fail to understand why so many evangelical Protestants are so opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy. As biblically speaking it is where the Bible truly shines forth. It is where the New Testament was written, and is best understood. 20 years ago, I followed my Bible into the EO Church, and I have been home since that time. Why is it most Protestant preachers do not allow for comments, positive or negative. What is it, once the pastor speaks the thinking has been done. Reminiscent of something said by a Mormon apostle 70 years ago!

@ma1ne0520

7 жыл бұрын

shirley goss If I'm not mistaken, EO believes in salvation by faith plus works. That is considered another gospel and is condemned in the Bible. Paul had strong words for those who preach another gospel in Galatians. No matter how some may dance around it, if we are not justified by the work of Jesus Christ ALONE by faith ALONE (keyword) then there is no salvation. Roman Catholicism, EO and the like all have the same soteriology for the most part. That's what the Reformation was mainly about. This is a Grand Canyon of an issue.

@ma1ne0520

7 жыл бұрын

Mike Ordo I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you suggesting that James teaches salvation by faith plus works?

@ma1ne0520

7 жыл бұрын

Mike Ordo Ok, but what does that prove? Does that disqualify the entire chapter of Romans 4 or Ephesians 2:8-9 or Romans 1:16-17? The teaching is still crystal clear. Scripture does not contradict.

@AlmondWillow

7 жыл бұрын

Satan has faith. His faith could even be said to be stronger than man's. He was God's angel after all, heard his voice, saw his light. Is he saved? What of the demons? They have faith, they lack works. Faith is nothing without works and works are nothing without faith. We know this because we read, understand and beleive the full scripture. Not just the parts we like. The statements do not contradict, they fulfill eachother. As you said, the etaching is crystal clear. James 2:14-26 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

@ma1ne0520

7 жыл бұрын

AlmondWillow So does Satan have faith in the atoning work of Jesus? Absolutely not! Satan believes and knows who Jesus is, no doubt, but does Satan put his faith in Christ for the atonement of his sins? Of course not. Ok here's a challenge. Since we know scripture does not contradict scripture, can you harmonize these texts along with James while using your hermeneutical approach? 1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:1-10, ESV) and this one, too... 1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." 9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Romans 4:1-12, ESV) (You can actually read Romans 4 in its entirety)

I need to find a book that contains Eastern Orthodox Church doctrines and provides biblical justification for those doctrines as well as early church fathers reasoning. If I can find this, many Protestants would convert because we look for biblical support for such things.

@BibleAnswerMan

Жыл бұрын

Here is a book on Eastern Orthodox theology that is geared for Protestant readers. www.equip.org/product/cri-resource-light-from-the-christian-east-an-introduction-to-the-orthodox-tradition/

This was the same guy that used to trash orthodoxy when he was an evangelical protestant. This same guy now converts to Orthodox church? Unbelievable! In his conversion story, he now defends "Faith and Works" which he use to vehemently oppose. He now believes in the Eucharist which he denied for years in his bible answer man show. I thought that you are mr. know it all as an evangelical protestant with your bible in hand. I don't think that this conversion will stop with the Eastern Orthodox church. I strongly believe that you will come to the fullness of faith in the Holy Catholic church soon. All roads lead to Rome. Proud Catholic.

I thank you for responding to my comment. I appreciated that. I will grant you that Paul did strongly condemn works. I thought however, that the works he condemned were works of the Mosaic law. And you know salvation in Jesus is by grace through faith, and it says in another place working through love. My question is where does it ever say alone?

@BibleAnswerMan

7 жыл бұрын

Hank addresses your Q here | www.equip.org/bible_answers/does-james-teach-salvation-by-works/ CRI Staff

@ma1ne0520

7 жыл бұрын

shirley goss 1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: (Romans 4:1-6, ESV) I would strongly suggest reading the entire chapter of Romans 4. Paul is not just condemning the Mosaic Law, but any works, period. He used Abraham as an example because he preceeded the Mosaic Law. As he states in verse 4, "Now to the one who works, his wages (salvation) are not counted as a gift but as his due (if we work for our salvation, then it's owed to us and not a gift from God). 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV)

@shirleygoss1988

7 жыл бұрын

Tramaine Green Follow up on Ephesians 2: 8,9 with also reading verse 10. It seems as if that verse is left off more often than not.

@ma1ne0520

7 жыл бұрын

shirley goss Oh not at all. We were created in Christ for good works that were preordained. I'm not suggesting that Christians are not called to do good works, it's just that those works do not merit one's salvation. Rather, the good works are a fruit of one's salvation. If I have to work for my salvation then God, by right, owes me because I've earned it. It's no longer a gift from God.

@shirleygoss3540

7 жыл бұрын

Could someone please give me a list of the "works" that Eastern Orthodox do to try to earn their salvation? I'm just not clear on what they are supposed to be?

Something I don't understand is how you say "God has his people all over the place" while the Orthodox church claims to be the one and only true church. And I stand by some of the core aspects of the protestant reformation which I think are contrary to some of the core aspects of the Orthodox church. In Scripture, God shows a supremacy of his word as the means by which his truth is made known and people are brought into life, over and above traditions of man including traditions of the church. I've not been very impressed with some of my few interactions with the Orthodox church, as it seems the traditions that are held to actually hold people back from the truths in God's word, and that's a hard thing to see and accept. But yeah I agree these things have to impact our lives and not just be truths we hold to.

@yeoberry

6 жыл бұрын

muploads58 : It’s true that the root problem was a lack of Christian dedication. That’s what caused the apostasy that lead to succumbing to idolatry in 787. Likely God delivered over most of the lands that were “Orthodox” to Islam because they had surrendered to idolatry. They chose their idols over Christ and, to make it worse, lied that worshipping the idols (the so-called “venerating icons”) was a way to worship Christ. So God took their idols away. Most of the remaining “Orthodox” lands succumbed to atheistic communism later. Thus no Christian tradition has been as weak at holding and positively influencing the cultures it is a part of as has been “Orthodoxy.” Indeed, it appears to be a negative moral influence because it is so dependent on lies, the foremost that it is the ancient church when in reality it radically broke from the original church.

@FirstnameLastname-py3bc

5 жыл бұрын

muploads58 iconoclasm didn't last more than one century and it didn't exceed realms of Eastern Roman empire

@MrDavicovic

5 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry And now Orthodoxy is in the New World and there is a revival in Eastern Europe while a lot of Protestant countries are relinquishing Protestantism

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

MrDavicovic : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. No Christian tradition has been as weak at holding and positively influencing the cultures it is a part of as has been “Orthodoxy.” Indeed, it appears to be a negative moral influence because it is so dependent on lies, the foremost that it is the ancient church when in reality it radically broke from the original church.

@MrDavicovic

5 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry 1. The command is about worshipping, learn the difference. 2. The Council was a local council, which is overturned by an Ecumenical Council which they did because the Church has the authority, something foreign to Protestantism with its 30 thousand denominations, if I don't agree with what the Pastor said I leave and create with own church with my own understanding of the Bible. 3. Funny how you use Origen when his work was anathemized by the Church. He also supported universalism and pre-existence of the souls, are you going to make a case for them? Moreover, do you listen to everything Luther said? Why not? Who gives you the authority to do it or not? I will prefer Orthodoxy rather than the chaotic situation of Protestantism, because tell me should I be Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist? Which is closest to the original church?

Still waiting for an answer Hank 😢

@BibleAnswerMan

Жыл бұрын

@TrueCrime Nerd21+ What's the question?

Hey Hank, I listened to you and Bott radio for years as a Protestant. I became a Catholic a few years back. While I cannot be completely onboard with your conversion to Orthodoxy, you are better off there than as a Protestant. I do love the Eastern liturgy though.

@АлексШматько

6 жыл бұрын

Michael Ibach Discover Orthodoxy.

@michaelibach9063

6 жыл бұрын

Alexander Shmatko Actually I went through Orthodoxy on my way to Catholicism. Matthew 16:18 18 And I tell you, you are Cephas, and on this cephas I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Discover Catholicism

@АлексШматько

6 жыл бұрын

Michael Ibach Did you hear about Holy Fire?

@michaelibach9063

6 жыл бұрын

Alexander Shmatko please, enlighten me

@АлексШматько

6 жыл бұрын

Michael Ibach Look it up. I wonder why Catholic priests don't tell about this significant annual miracle that has been happening for two thousands years.

Why does the Orthodox bible not have the Imprimatur, Nihl in it? Thanks

@BibleAnswerMan

3 жыл бұрын

The “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur” belong to the Roman Catholic tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy is a different tradition. See www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ For obvious reasons, you would not really find the Roman Catholic “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur” on the Orthodox Study Bible. Neither would you find the Roman Catholic “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur” on the Reformation Study Bible nor on the Holman Study Bible.

What.Gospel.do.they.preach.

Tramaine; You should read James chapter 2. This might give you a better idea of what Mike is likely getting at.

@ma1ne0520

7 жыл бұрын

shirley goss I've read James 2 and actually taught on it. Is James talking about faith for justification? No. James is referring to our living. Since only God knows the heart of man, how can someone tell if I'm a Christian? If I claim to have faith (profession) but have no fruit, then what do I have? I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. The Bible is clear that we are justified by faith alone, or as Paul says, "Apart from the law..." Apart means separate from. If I can work for my salvation then it's owed to me. If it's owed to us then how is it a "gift from God" (Ephesians)?

@shirleygoss1988

7 жыл бұрын

Tramaine Green I just read your most recent post. Thank you for that. I believe I asked for a list of 'works' Evangelical Protestants believe Eastern Orthodox Christians do to work out their salvation. This just as a matter of my own personal curiosity.

@yeoberry

6 жыл бұрын

You should read the early church: 1. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira (c. 305) states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 2. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 3. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 4. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 5. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

That is really true the fact real Christian sould be interested by Orthodox Christianity, I have always been fascinated by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some Catholic Priest are also saying ''The Mystery of Faith''

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

@Shindler39

2 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry Read John Damascus a great Father of the Church about the Iconosclasts. Since the unseen God had become visible, there was no blasphemy in painting visible representations of Jesus or other historical figures.

@yeoberry

2 жыл бұрын

@@Shindler39 : John of Damascus was a medieval theologian who broke with the teachings of the early church.

So brother Hank, does the Orthodox Church even win souls to Christ?

@yeehaw6267

5 жыл бұрын

Final Evangelist Yes, but unfortunately, the Orthodox Church has spent the past several centuries under intense persecution and repression. In the late 15th Century, after the fall of Constantinople and the invasion of the Orthodox Byzantine Empire, most of the places where the Orthodox Church was prominent became overrun by the Muslims. The Church spent centuries under their rule, being persecuted and oppressed. The Muslims carried out several genocides against Orthodox populations, in which millions of Orthodox Christians were systematically slaughtered and enslaved; the most famous of which is probably the Armenian Genocide. After that, the rise of Communism overtook almost all of Eastern Europe. The Communists didn’t allow any religion at all, being caught in possession of a Bible was a certain sentence to a labor camp or even death. Even today, the Church is still under fierce persecution and repression in Africa, Palestine/Israel, and much of the rest of the Middle East. This oppression prevented the Orthodox Church from being able to do a lot of evangelizing in the wider world. However, we are beginning to see that change with the internet and the growing religious tolerance in many countries. Orthodoxy is growing not only in the East, but also in the West and in traditionally Protestant countries like America; in America it was once almost impossible to find an Orthodox church within a practical distance, now there are Orthodox churches all over the US.

@clark5363

4 жыл бұрын

I’m mean, im not becoming orthodox by accident so.. yes. They win the souls that do the study and are interested in original Christianity.

Which Bible do English speaking Orthodox Christians generally read?

@BibleAnswerMan

4 жыл бұрын

The Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version translation.

@howdy2496

4 жыл бұрын

@@BibleAnswerMan Thank you for your reply. I've recently taken interest in Orthodoxy. There is only one Orthodox church locally. My family and I went this past week to help make some dumplings. I spoke to a very nice Orthodox gentlemen for a few hours. My sticking point was praying to the saints. The example he gave by way of analogy was Mary had a T 1 connection to God and I have a dial up modem. He kind of lost me there. Brief testimony. About 30 yrs ago as a lost depressed suicidal teenager God through His word (Bible) saved me. I felt His presence along with the Bible taking life that night. I was filled with incromprehensible joy and peace while an hour before I wanted to blow my brains out. I'm not eloquent enough to describe the assurance of God's love for me that I received that night. The feeling of abandonment I had towards God was replaced by His loving fatherly embrace. It was as though I received a taste of eternity with Him. So when the gentleman said I had a dial up connection versus a T1 it made me wonder how a church which claims direct lineage from the apostles could not themselves believe they have a T1 connection with God. That being said, the gentleman exemplified Christianity almost better than any one I had previously met. I do find orthodoxy intriguing though ( as long as they don't take away my T1 connection to God). Any clarification on this issue is greatly appreciated. Other than that sticking point I do like what I've seen. Blessings

@kthomas3280

3 жыл бұрын

King James

@L2A815

2 жыл бұрын

@@howdy2496 intercessory prayers are a normal practice in the Faith. Christ destroyed death by death. If his Saints die faithfully in Him, death is nothing. Christ has Rise from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing Life.

There seems to be an attitude I find very strange in any Christian minister. That is to state that only a physical presence of Christ in the Communion is real. Both Zwingli explicitly and Calvin implicitly state that Christ is present spiritually to those who receive in good faith. Are those of Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox etc disposition really denying that spiritual things are real?

what about the Oriental orthodox? didn't they the one kept the book of Enoch while the other churches remove it?

@BibleAnswerMan

3 жыл бұрын

The Book of Enoch is neither found listed with the books of Masoretic Text (the ancient OT text in Hebrew) nor the Septuagint (ancient Greek translations of the OT). None of the early church fathers of Christianity recognized Enoch as part of the Canon. We are unaware of any Rabbinic sources that acknowledged Enoch as Scripture. Enoch was never "removed" per se albeit many folks imagine it ought to be added and recognized as part of the Bible but wrongly so. Oriental Orthodox churches are non-Caledonian, a heretical schism denying essential teachings of Christ. See www.equip.org/article/how-was-orthodoxy-established-in-the-ecumenical-councils/

@nickdixom543

3 жыл бұрын

Actually that was just the sect of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church that kept 1-2 Enoch in their bibles. However if i am not mistaken the Oriental Churches rejoined with Eastern Orthodoxy in AD 1999 i think the kinks are just being worked out.

I have been actually searching orthodoxy over the last month. But I found a video on I believe they are Western orthodox? The one man said he was so I'm pretty sure this Abbott from a monk monastery might be to? So I guess that would be Russian correct? Well that Abbott described the Trinity and it was incorrect. I don't care what you say I know it was incorrect. Then I found a video where a oriental orthodox priest described it perfectly. So what's the deal with that? The priest in question's name was Abbott Tryphon. Advent retreat with Abbott Tryphon.

@BibleAnswerMan

6 жыл бұрын

Abbot Tryphon is Russian Orthodox. For more information about Eastern Orthodoxy check out the following... www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ Warren Nozaki Research

What about Oriental orthodox? Is that an eastern schism? I have a feeling there have been more divides on the eastern side than they give credit for.

@lllllll9378

5 жыл бұрын

Nope oriental orthodoxy split at the council of chalcedon before Easter orthodoxy even split with Catholicism

@Thunderstruck951

4 жыл бұрын

Those churches left in 451 AD regarding a council that was defining the nature of Jesus. The split was over the wording used to describe Jesus's divine and human natures. But in other videos here you can find talks where both the Oriental and the Eastern groups are talking about reuniting. The Oriental Orthodox might also give some interesting incite into early Christianity, because they have been somewhat independent and removed from other cultures and traditions for 1,600 years.May God bless your searching.

@johnmcadam7493

4 жыл бұрын

I am well late to the game. FX2 and LII both have great posts. I would add also the political element here regrading the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was an amalgam of Egyptians, Syrians, Armenians, Caucus Region, Numidia and North Africa. The Oriental Orthodox Church comprises the Copts, the Ethiopians, The Syro-Chaldean Churchs, and later the Malabar Rite. Within the Empire, there was always a certain tension between the Greco-Roman Bishops and Egyptians who made up the largest denomination within the Empire. By the late 400's you could see the animosity/distance rising because the Egyptians felt themselves pushed out from the machinery of Empire, both politically and religiously. Constantinople was a one way street. The best and brightest were sucked out of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem etc. When these areas became subdued by the Muslim Tsunami in the 640's ... only then did the Emperors realize what they had lost ... and that loss was significant ! They felt it. The Early Church had to deal with many heresy's concerning the nature of Christ: Origen, Pelagius, Docetists, the Gnostics, and the biggie of course was Arian. We see exactly the same problems arising with Mary: Theotokos versus Christotokos: "God-bearer" verus "Christ-Bearer". The Greek language is extremely exacting in its meaning. I "think" that over the centuries, the Orthodox world has come to the understanding that the Orientals and Eastern Orthodox are merely arguing over a misunderstanding in translation: Monophysite versus Miaphysite. Think of the Desert Fathers themeselves: most are Copts. Yet, celebrated as Patriarchs of the Church. If you think about it, the Orientals have never suffered Schism. They have remained consistent through out the centuries. Please see Acts 8 where Philip converts the Ethiopian who was reading Isaiah. It's odd because, why was an Ethiopian reading a text on Isaiah? Ethiopia holds many keys and mysteries to both the Jewish and Christian Faiths. They are an ancient race with an ancient Faith. We know of St. John Chrysostom mentiong that the Ethiopians made regular pilgrimages to Jersulam to the Holy Tomb ( circa 340's ). Today, we see much interaction, ecumenical teaching and training, and administering the rites amongst the Orientals and Orthodox. They are on friendly terms. My parish alone has Syrians, Greeks, Ukranians, Belarussians, Lebanese, etc. You would never really find that kind of fellowship between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. You would at an individual level, but never at the "corprorate" level. I know because I am an Irish convert ... one who is much more happy in the Eastern Rite than in the Western Rite. Lonoger than I wanted. Thanks for listening.

@zen-sufi

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnmcadam7493 What is your parish? Is it oriential orthodox? I have been intimidated to visit any orthodox church, with the exception of OCA, because they seem divided by ethnics.

@johnmcadam7493

3 жыл бұрын

@@zen-sufi How are you ? Hopefully you are well. A bit of long post because I think you are asking a deeper question: Irish Catholic born. Irish Catholic bred. Orthodox by choice. Orthodox on purpose. I became Greek Orthodox. Why? My mother is Spanish, and I feel more closely akin to the culture, customs, and traditions of Greeks rather than say the Slavs, Ehtiopians, or Christian Arabs. The one exception would be the Antiochans ( Lebanese ). Joining a "nationalist church" can be intimidating. Trust me I understand. However, a good EO priest will be completely understanding and will be helpful. As an example, The Greek Orthodox Church in America has adopted a bilingual format ( Greek-English ). In America, indeed world wide, the most organized and well funded EO Church is the Russian Orthodox Church. I would place the Greeks next, and the Antiochans ( Lebanese ) third. I have a special place in my heart for the Antiochans. If you are a Traditional Catholic, this is a lateral move, as Holy If you are Protestant, you may find the Sacraments, Holy Icons, Holy Eucharist, etc. to be somewhat different than what you are accustomed to. God Bless !

I did feel like that title of the video did not represent the actual content of the video. It misrepresents it, probably unintentionally.

@BibleAnswerMan

Ай бұрын

@AA-gw6wd The distinctive teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy were addressed. What is missing? What needs to be added?

@AA-gw6wd

Ай бұрын

@@BibleAnswerMan thanks for the response, I will re watch it consider the question carefully and respond.

@AA-gw6wd

Ай бұрын

@@BibleAnswerMan here is a breakdown of the video: 0:00-0:57 question 0:57-2:19 church history 2:19-4:00 various influences on your faith a d mere Christianity 4:00-4:56 impact of progeny of watchman Ni 4:56-5:20 mention of theosis 5:20-5:59 overcoming language barriers 5:59- 6:10 gods people all over and mere Christianity mentioned again 6:10-6:40 presence of Christ in Eucharist 6:40- 7:31 orthodoxy can embrace this mystery and others

@AA-gw6wd

Ай бұрын

@@BibleAnswerMan as you can see very little if any time spent enumerating, naming or describing the “doctrinal distinctives.”

@AA-gw6wd

Ай бұрын

For the record, I enjoyed the video and thought it was fine, not particularly interesting to me, but probably very helpful and interesting to others, so great video just clearly did not do what the title describes. That’s all. Maybe “my idiosyncratic relationship with orthodoxy” would be more apt.

Hank sought of reminds me of Solomon.

@ferventheat

5 жыл бұрын

That could be bad... Solomon backslid into pagan idol worship, lost his connection with God

do we need to be orthodox to be saved?

@BibleAnswerMan

Ай бұрын

@Fred-Phelps Why do you ask? Are you referring to theological orthodoxy? Or are you referring to Eastern Orthodoxy?

@Fred-Phelps

Ай бұрын

@@BibleAnswerMan yes I am referring to Eastern orthodoxy. I became very interested in it after listening to Hank. I realise some protestant churches have lost their way. However i did notice that some say that orthodoxy is the only true denomination.

I can understand why many American evangelicals convert to the Orthodox church, especially because there is so much shallowness and confusion among American evangelicals. I myself love my brothers and sisters in the Orthodox communities and appreciate a lot of their ways. However Americans should be warned. What they experience in their western Orthodox communities is not the norm in countries like Greece, Serbia and Russia. There Orthodoxy is deeply involved in narrow nationalism, superstition and consists in many cases of nothing more than empty ritualism. Very little of the Gospel is found in many places, although there are off course some wonderful exceptions! I am so happy to have Jesus Christ as my sole Mediator and Highpriest… He is enough for me and I don’t miss relics, candles and incense!

Hank why can’t the EOC give more specific answers to the more esoteric mysteries of the Bible? i.e. Adam and Eve, garden of eden. It is more generalized not specific. Did Eve have relations with the devil and Adam resulting in Cane and Abel thus corrupting mankind? Thank you.

@BibleAnswerMan

5 жыл бұрын

Your question is answered in the following article… www.equip.org/article/eve-sex-satan-serpent-seed-view-genesis-315/ Warren Nozaki Research

@nickdixom543

3 жыл бұрын

@@BibleAnswerMan i been wandering that too

Very precious few teach & preach that Yeshua came to fulfill (fill out) the Spring Feasts of the LORD and that at his return he will fulfill the Fall Feasts of YeHoVaH Almighty.

@jakedubin8219

11 ай бұрын

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church true?

Do they pray to Mary and the saints as the Catholics do? Do they pray for the dead?

@BibleAnswerMan

4 жыл бұрын

Hank addresses praying to saints on this episode of the Bible Answer Man broadcast. www.equip.org/broadcast/islamic-terrorism-persecuted-christians-qa/

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

Bible Answer Man : He’s succumb to idolatry. The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@user-pj7sq7ce1f

2 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry is Jesus Christ an icon of God ?εικών

Hank learned the truth and went against Baptist faith and many others.

@BibleAnswerMan

2 ай бұрын

@playersteven007 Thanks for sharing. 🙏

His answer sounds like it could also apply to Anglicanism.

I don't feel comfortable with the bowing down to idols/icons in the eastern orthodox church? And although people who use icons in their worship would deny that they are practicing idolatry, it is difficult to see how “venerating” an object is different from idolatry. It is idolatry whether they are conscious of it or not. It's not pleasing to our Saviour Lord Jesus. Also, the wine and bread are in memory of our Lord's death on the cross. Jesus spoke many times symbolically. John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Praying for you Hank.

To teach that there is an uncreated light district from the essence of God is a damnable heresy. This not only is heresy, it's blasphemy.

Interesting Article from an Ex Protestant who became Orthodox. He explains exactly why and you can read it here: journeytoorthodoxy.com/2016/05/deans-list-21-reasons-orthodox-christian/

@yeoberry

6 жыл бұрын

Anastasios Tsatsakis : Here’s some interesting teachings from the early church proving that they strictly forbad icons. The Orthodox broke away from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

@gordonj5157

6 жыл бұрын

Thx Anastasios

@spartanastas5560

6 жыл бұрын

yeoberry you quote heretics... do you kiss anyone? Do you worship them? Did you watch the Passion of Christ???? If you did, hypocrite!

@yeoberry

6 жыл бұрын

+Anastasios: The bishops of the Council of Elvira, Eusebius, and Epiphanius are not heretics. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. If you do that, you're an idolater. Calling it "venerating icons" no more excuses breaking the second commandment than calling adultery "making love" excuses violating the sixth. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) provides historical evidence of what the early church practiced. There is no valid evidence of anyone in the early church using icons. 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

@spartanastas5560

6 жыл бұрын

Saint Luke painted Soumela and Vladimir icon another in Syriac Orthodox Church miracle working and many stream myhhr and oil.... but you know better than he....

As an Orthodox priest I can day that you are on the right track but since you do not have a deep understanding of Orthodoxy yet you should refrain from giving talks about theology at least for the time being.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

Tyxikos Gatopoulos : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@yeehaw6267

4 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell 1. No. The Greek word here is “eidolon” not “eikon”. This is an important distinction, as we see God commanding images of things like snakes and angels to be made-including in His Temple. 2. Elvira was a local Synod of Rome, which itself in this canon broke from the consensus of the rest of the Church. 3. Origen was a heretic. His writings do contain many solid insights, but also many falsehoods. For example, he also taught universalism (the heresy that all, even the unbelievers, will eventually be saved). 4. This letter is believed to be a forgery, as no one quotes any part of it or even attests to its existence in any capacity until several centuries after it was supposedly written. Eusebius actually attests to the usage of iconography in the Church and appears to support its usage: “And so it remains for us to own that it is the Word of God who in the preceding passage is regarded as divine: whence the place is even today honored by those who live in the neighborhood as a sacred place in honor of those who appeared to Abraham...For they who were entertained by Abraham, as represented in the picture, sit one on each side, and He in the midst surpasses them in honor-this would be our Lord and Savior.” (From Eusebius’ “Proof of the Gospels”) 5. This quote, like the alleged letter of Eusebius, is believed to be an iconoclast forgery, as it is nowhere attested to before the iconoclast controversy. 6. No, we see that Protestants continue to blaspheme that which they do not understand, and continue to proof-text the Fathers just as they try to proof-text the Scriptures. 7. No

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

Yee Haw 1. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, not Greek. Obviously, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The 2nd commandment prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Elvira proves that the early church strictly prohibited icons. It’s irrelevant whether it was an ecumenical council. 3. Origen was never officially declared a heretic and that’s irrelevant whether he was or not as he provides evidence that the early church strictly prohibited icons. 4. No, Eusebius’ letter is not thought to be a forgery. You’re lying. Eusebius gave more evidence that the early church strictly prohibited icons in several documents. The quote you cite is not about Christians using icons. You’re lying. 5. No, Epiphanius’ Letter 51 is not thought to be a forgery. The idea that it was forged was made up without evidence several centuries after it was written by idolaters like you. 6. Since the early church strictly prohibited icons, then the eastern “orthodox” are a semi-pagan medieval sect that broke away from the tradition of the early church and now lies about its origins.

@yeehaw6267

4 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell 1. The Septuagint, which predates the Hebrew Masoretic, is Greek. 2. No, Elvira proves that a single locality forbade icons, the mere fact that they are attested to elsewhere in the Church shows that the whole of the early Church was not on the side of Elvira. 3. Yes he was, Origen, along with various of his teachings and various of his books were anathematized at Constantinople II in 553. It is very relevant, because I am holding up the litany of men who were not heretics and you are leaning on the testimony of a heretic and a few cherry-picked questionable texts. 4 and 5. I would advise you to research further. 6. The early Church did no such thing, we see attestations to images throughout the early Church. Again, I would advise you to actually study all the Fathers, not just the handful of quotes given by iconoclasts. 7. I am not here to debate, simply to state the truth. I’m not going to spend further time going back and forth, the testimony of the Church in 787 speaks for itself, and you can either join yourself to the truth or perish in rebellion against it. Good evening, and God bless

@ghassanmina

3 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry the old testament talked about exterminating the Canaanite and you can find a lot of them around you if this fulfills your faith go and start killing. I believe in Jesus and not the Bible. The old testament also consider a certain guy who thrown his son in the middle of the desert is a prophet while today we call such a person a criminal. So keep following your old testament and we will keep following the values that Jesus thought us.

What about all the idolatry that goes on in the Eastern Orth. service? Kissing the "holy" iconic images? There are too many questions unanswered!

@BibleAnswerMan

4 жыл бұрын

Hank addresses your question here: www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/

@clark5363

4 жыл бұрын

Bro that isn’t idolatry. Go read some St. John of Damascus and educate yourself.

@yeoberry

4 жыл бұрын

Gavin’s Friend : That is idolatry. John of Damascus is not from the early church but from the medieval period. He broke with the teachings of the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is disingenuous. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

Subtitles only in Russian

Hank Hanegraaff, welcome to the ancient faith, that of the Apostles. Welcome to a closer walk with Christ through the sacraments, the mysteries. The only aspect of the ancient faith that you lack is Peter. Still, with great respect and admiration, welcome!

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

Jay Subrosa : It’s a medieval sect. The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@jaysubrosa6147

5 жыл бұрын

@@yeoberry From the Second Council of Nicea... Anathema to the calumniators of the Christians, that is to the image breakers. Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as to gods. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images. Anathema to those who say that another than Christ our Lord has delivered us from idols. Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holyEcumenical Synods, and the tradition of the CatholicChurch. Anathema to those who dare to say that the CatholicChurch has at any time sanctioned idols. Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers. Covenant Caswell, the council is speaking about you. You are anethema.

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

Jay Subrosa : That Council was in 787, the Middle Ages. The early church strictly prohibited icons. The Orthodox broke away from the early church. Here’s what the early church really taught: 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is just changing the name of the sin. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origen (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church.

@atanasiogreene8493

4 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell apostle Luke made the first icon so you are sadly mistaken

Why are there so many things in EOC that is not found in New Testament? Priestly robes, candles, icons...?

@patrickmartin8783

5 жыл бұрын

Noordeman Why is Protestantism just for entertainment and not for worship?

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

Old Believers : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@patrickmartin8783

5 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell 7th Ecumenical council. And the Orthodox Church is the original church. as even Luke the evangelist painted the first icon of Theotokos. And the early church fathers used icons too.

@patrickmartin8783

5 жыл бұрын

Covenant Caswell and u quote Eusebius?? You mean the Arian Heretic? And the one who opposed council of Nicaea. And btw Eusebius wasn’t anti icons

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

Old Believers : Which “Seventh Ecumenical Council”? The first one that banned icons or the second one that succumbed to paganism? The 787 council was a product of the medieval period and thus the “Orthodox” Church is a medieval sect. The story of Luke painting an icon is a myth fabricated in the medieval period. No one in the early church taught it or believed it. You don’t know church history.

Hank, you FAILED to ANSWER the question!

Why does the woman on the beast, the one who drinks the blood of the saints, have "Mystery" on her head? It's like what ur describing is a woman. Causes you to tremble yet attracts you.

@70AD-user45

4 жыл бұрын

The "woman on the beast" was apostate Old Covenant Jerusalem, who persecuted and martyred the Saints.

What i find puzzling Hank, is why the Lord’s Supper memorial, morphed into a liturgy with a rather covert ritual in which the faithful are left to only imagine what is going on within the shadows of a shrouded altar, as the main celebrant’s back shields what it is that Jesus wanted all to see and understand. I think these circumstances are one reason why the Western Church hierarchy saw the need for Vatican Council ll. In short, when Jesus spoke the words, “Do this in remembrance of me”, I don’t think what we see in the Orthodox, and Tridentine, liturgy, is what He had in mind.

Hank, do you bow to priests and call them “Father”?

@BibleAnswerMan

3 жыл бұрын

Your question will passed on to Hank. We can never call any earthly man “Father” and bow to him with the same heart of worship we give to the Heavenly Father. Not even our own biological fathers deserve the kind of worship only due to God. However, we are never prohibited from showing honor to those whom honor is due. To call a man father is a term of endearment and respect. To bow to someone is a show of honor. Abraham bowed in respect to the Hittites. Ruth bowed to Boaz. David bowed before Saul. Humans bow to other humans as a show of honor and respect, but they never attribute the same kind of worship due only to God. Paul even taught that he “became [the Corinthians’] father through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). In light of God’s supremacy, and the gospel’s efficacy, he could use this term to designate himself. In addition, as Elijah was miraculously transported to heaven in a chariot, Elisha, whom Elijah had mentored, cried, “ ‘My father, my father’ ”(2 Kings 2:11-12). When we recognize that God is our ultimate father, we may likewise use this term.

I remember listening to Hank in the early 90's for my edification as a new Christian, reading all his books, even being on his show back in 1997 in a question about the Church of Christ and some of its heresies. The soothing, erudite and well spoken voice of Hank has always grounded me in truth and the man who has exposed a "Christianity in Crisis" now has turned to apostasy himself in the form of the Orthodox church and has embraced the most damning heresy that mankind has ever adopted, the Eucharist. The second council of Trent, to which the Eastern Orthodox adheres states that in the Eucharist (wafer) exists the body, soul and divinity; the actual, physical body of Christ; His DNA, and eating His body is what practice celebrates His Sacrifice. Absolute blasphemy! CANNIBALISM! (if you truly believe it) Here is the man who exposed so many wolves in sheeps clothing either finally exposing himself or progressing to be himself, one of those most ferocious wolves. It is the heart of protestantism that Hank is abandoning. The abominable Eucharist was at the heart of Luther's reformation! Hank is now an agent of the elite, Jesuit community and is embracing mystery Babylon the Great; the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth! The fall of Hank proves that this battle is fought right here in our faces and that we should absolutely heed the advice of our Savior: "take heed that no man deceive you". Matthew 24:4 We must now pray earnestly for this man whom we ourselves once asked for prayer.

@BibleAnswerMan

6 жыл бұрын

Hank has addressed your concern about joining Christianity's Eastern Orthodox Church here | www.equip.org/article/left-christian-faith/ and www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ Warren Nozaki Research

@chefjimmie1

6 жыл бұрын

Warren: The very reason for The Reformation was the heretical Eucharist! Of this heresy of eating the flesh of Jesus Christ after a priest "consecrates" a wafer and turns it into the actual, living, body of Christ (completely unbiblical but more reminiscent of the pagan religions) Hank says "What’s more, I’ve come to realize that we can experience the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist." BLASPHEME! The REAL presence of Christ doesn't occur when someone EATS Him, it is when a person is regenerated by being born again of the Spirit at which time he is indwelled by the Holy Spirit. No amount of words can explain that a born again Christian hasn't rejected the TRUE historic Christian faith after making a statement like that _and_ after converting to the heretical traditions of men. As it stands, it appears Hank has gathered a large Christian audience over the years for the sake of ecumenism and the bringing in of the Jesuit, one world religion for the antichrist and it saddens me to the same point that it angers me.

@MrDavicovic

5 жыл бұрын

@@chefjimmie1 Lol, Luther believed in the Real Presence.

@chefjimmie1

5 жыл бұрын

MrDavicovic: Yes, Luther believed in the Sacramental Union, does that mean that I should? What does the BIBLE say about this? Just because the Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic religions and traditions of mankind believe something that was wrong doesn't mean that the individual should adopt such beliefs for themselves but the opposite. Jesus commanded us not to be deceived yet every "religion" in the world is engaged in deception on one level or another, most often many. It is the duty of every person who seeks the Truth of God to STUDY for themselves. We can learn from others but we must TEST what they say in light of Scripture.

@MrDavicovic

5 жыл бұрын

@@chefjimmie1 The Symbolic Communion is a man made tradition. Jesus said "This is my body". I guess the Bible and the early Church Fathers were delusional.

Schism is a wrong term for Gods church that cant be splited(thats what the greek word schism means).Split allways produse the less two pieces.That cant be happen to ones Gods body,His church.We use the word schism with the meaning that pope left the (only one)church.When a sick man(pope) is gets out of tge hospital(church),he is not taking the hospital with him,or split it.The hospital is in its place and in one piece.

Images are like signs; desired by a faithless, adulterous generation. Simple.

2:25 I don't think the Orthodox church champions mere Christianity. How can Hank be Eastern Orthodox 🤔

The Eucharist. Don't the Eastern Orthodox Chuurch believe that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ? But isn't it supposed to be symbolic? Didn't Jesus say so to His disciples? So then its a false teaching and heresy to teach so otherwise.

@BibleAnswerMan

5 жыл бұрын

Eastern Orthodox along with many other Christians (e.g. Lutherans) affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Hank Hanegraaff explains here: www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ Warren Nozaki Research

@Thunderstruck951

4 жыл бұрын

Look at the second half of John chapter 6. Even the Disciples did not fully understand.

@billhipsterduffs8256

4 жыл бұрын

Christ died once for our sins. The Catholics and EO believes once isn’t enough.

@user-pj7sq7ce1f

2 жыл бұрын

@@billhipsterduffs8256 the Eucharist is on that one and it is a Reality hebrews 13:10 we have a altar that jews cant take the sacrifice

No prophecy says anything about a miracle conception nor that someone would die to cover all our sins. Not one!! We each must REPENT and live the moral law of the 10 commandments and love others as ourself. No rituals, no works of the law of Moses, no tithing, no church going, all that came later thru the catholic church. By our fruits they will know us!! Going to church is not a fruit, paying tithes is not a fruit. The true gospel got perverted by the OTHER gospel soon after John died. Anyone who has faith to believe that the Fathers promises are true, even though we can't see them, and live According to his will, we are born of his spirit as Sons. Same way Jesus was. Romans 1:3-4. Being born again is the miracle birth, not a physical birth. Then we become dual natured. We also partake of the nature because we have put on immortality. It doesnt mean we become God-men nor was it for Jesus. No human being can be God Almighty! Smh!! The 9bvious is right under your own nose. Jesus warned about this great lie that would come. A false image created to the beast. Worshipping a man as God!!!! The biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind!!!

He didn't answer the question

@BibleAnswerMan

2 ай бұрын

Reply: Can you expound on that? What was missed?

7.5 min you didn't even answer the question

The Eastern Orthodox Church is essentially the Catholic church without a Pope.

@patrickmartin8783

5 жыл бұрын

Derek Birmingham That comment shows your ignorance

@jakedubin8219

11 ай бұрын

@@patrickmartin8783is the Eastern Orthodox Church true?

The bible was not written by the Prophets and of the Apostles of Christ not to be misunderstood. however many will crept in unnotice among the churches of God who will read the scripture out of ignorance of the truth. The Truth was revealed at the cross to fulfill the law of Christ, not only He nailed down our sinful flesh, but to distroy the work of Satan and the renewal of all His creation. Our curruptable body cannot inherit the incurruptable body that we are waiting for those who suffer in obedience for Christ sake. God will test our faith in obedience to Christ. our body is the worse enemy of our spirit, but being born of God we are no longer ignorance of the truth, mystery was revealed at the cross. we are no longer under the power of darkness, or a slave of sin, or a liers of our faith in Christ. If anyone preach to you a different gospel, or an angel from heaven preach to you a different gospel that you have not recieved from the writting of the Apostles of Christ, Let him be acursed. Apostle Paul let's not go beyond what was written to us. We are the epistles written in the heart of the Apostles of Christ. they are the true witnessess anointed by our Lord Christ Jesus. As a Christian we are all partakers of what the apostles preach, our fellowship is base on the teaching of the Apostles of Christ. We are all one churchs of Christ. If anyone add or subtract what was written to in these book of life shall be judges according to what was written in the scripture itself, Let us be beblical according to the written word of God, not base on our own preconcieved idea.or the philosopy of man's tradition. These is how many false reckless preachers who will deny the truth out of ignorance. They have no idea if they are in error, denounce Christ, and fall into apostacy. They are not decipline by any writing, or any ideology of the scripture. and specially they have no knowledges of the truth, If the Holy Spirit of God was forsaken them. God do not hear a sinners who lie about the truth, and make there own gospel base on there own interpretation who God is in there own carnal thinking. and many are loving it, because of there eloquent word of men not base on the wisdom of God. no man is righteouss in the sight of God. The bible was not lacking any information that cannot be answered. test your self if you are preaching according to the Spirit, or you are speaking for yourself. If Christ is in you, who is the one who are preaching, Just like Paul said, I donot preach of my own, but Christ is in me. we are the churchs of Christ. There is no such thing written by the Apostles of Christ that we are Catholic Church, Protestant, Baptist Church, Seven days Adventist or any denomination, We are all one body of Christ, called churches of God. Martin Luther is not send by God to be our Apostles, or anybody else. The last Apostle use by our Lord Christ Jesus is Apostle Paul to be a witness to all the gentiles, and the twelve Apostles anointed by Christ to be a witnessess to the 12 tribes of Israel. They are no longer under the law of Moses. we are now under the of the righteousness of the law of Christ through faith. You cannot have faith without submitting to the law of Christ. so when we obey the law of Christ you donot boast Your work before God, These are the work of of the flesh, but if you obey the work of Christ, then you boast your work to God, We are created to do the work of our Lord God Jesus. By faith we cannot boast our works before Christ. God do not glorify His creation, or please men, we work to glorify our creator. Being fallowers of Christ we should not be ignorance of the truth. mystery was revealed at the cross. we would not crucified the Lord of Glory if we have known the truth, Being born of God baptize in the word of God. we are no longer a slave of sin, but under the grace of God who teaches us to deny sin, to leave a godly life, to resist the devil, who will lead us not into temptation, but delivered us from evil. what I'm telling you is scriptural. because if you are in error, or denounce Christ. How many churches of God are you going to put to hell. Being a preacher you are accountable for greater condemnation. I'm not hear to condem anybody, but to warned you, God wants to save all His creation including me. May God Bless America.

Orthodoxy deviated from catholicism

Sacraments won't save.

@robertwhatley2825

6 жыл бұрын

Mike Nasif Nor will blindness to the truth of the Orthodox Church.

@mikep3502

6 жыл бұрын

Robert Whatley God will sort it out in the end. (: That, we agree on.

@patrickmartin8783

5 жыл бұрын

Mike Nasif outside the church there is no salvation

@yeoberry

5 жыл бұрын

Old Believers : The "Orthodox" claim that their practice of bowing before images is acceptable and preserved from the early church. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) is the only commandment that explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Origin (184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9). 6. Hence we see that the "Orthodox" church radically broke away from the tradition of the early church. 7. So Hank's claim that for the first century the "orthodox" was the pattern for all the church is false.

@user-me3rq5np5i

5 жыл бұрын

Only God saves. But without real and true and legitime sacraments - there are no real and legitime Church. So you are like Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben.

👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻

Eastern Orthodoxy was the same as the Catholic church until the schism. Paganism does not only exist in the Catholic church but also in the Orthodox church, since the first Nicene council and Constantine.

@robertwhatley2825

6 жыл бұрын

Barbara Vlahos If this be true then the Protestants are even more pagan as you are twice removed from the truth of the True Church.

@patrickmartin8783

5 жыл бұрын

Then Christianity didn’t exist until Martin Luther.

@user-pj7sq7ce1f

2 жыл бұрын

Μυρωδιά δεν έχεις πάρει από την ορθοδοξία είσαι και Ελληνίδα

Hank you're almost there... Come home to Rome bro. The bottom line is still about authority!

@spartanastas5560

6 жыл бұрын

Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, not a Pope....

@romgtr

6 жыл бұрын

Of course that is not in dispute. Christ called His Church the Kingdom of God. Every kingdom needs a King (Christ), Queen Mother (Our Lady), Prime Minister (Pope), Cabinet Ministers (Bishops and Cardinals), and Subjects (lay people). Is the Church a Kingdom of God or not?

@spartanastas5560

6 жыл бұрын

Romano the difference is that the Pope can make changes all by himself... and that puts him on the same level as Jesus Christ who created the Church... Orthodoxy only has spiritual leaders and a council who meet to vote on things, and it must be unanimous for changes to happen in the Orthodox Church...

@romgtr

6 жыл бұрын

My orthodox brother it seems that you have a misunderstanding of the idea of what a kingdom is... A kingdom is not a democracy where you vote on things to get a concensus. That is not what Christ had in mind when He said, in Matthew 16:19 "Whatever YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven" singularly to St. Peter. Christ said it so I believe Him. Do you have enough faith to believe His words?

@romgtr

6 жыл бұрын

Yes I already know that that is the difference. That is why the Pope is called the "Vicar of Christ." A good example of that would be in the Book of Exodus. Pharaoh gave all power and authority in his kingdom to Joseph. Did Joseph need a concensus and have his ministers take a vote? When you become the Priminister you represent the King. You don't need to have a vote or a concensus on anything. That's how a kindom works and the bible agrees with this. The Church is not a democracy it's a Kingdom.