@suzannemcmaken4648 Oh, I almost forgot. acts 2:42 42 And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers. John 6:4 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. john 6:8-11 8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, *said to Him, 9 “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” 10 Jesus said, “Have the people [a]sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men [b]sat down, in number about five thousand. 11 Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks (eucharistēsas) , He distributed them to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish, as much as they wanted. John 6:52-54 52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. John6:51 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and also the bread which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
@@TheCoachsCoach933 The word KATHOLES is used as an ADJECTIVE, not as the proper name of a religion. Therefore, there is no mention of. Catholic/Roman Catholic “church” in all of scripture.
In 1626, the decision of the Diet of Speyer was that every prince should hold whichever religious beliefs he could justify before his King and God. Three years later, the Diet held in that same place revoked the earlier decision. Six German princes (nobles) created a letter of protest. King Ferdinand refused to accept it so, instead of it being read out, it was printed and made public. The English term, “protestant” was coined to refer to those German princes and was later applied to everyone who believed (and believes) that no one is bound by secular authority in matters of faith. Pope Francis has made a distinction between certain kinds of sin and “crimes” - which I understand to mean that he agrees it is inappropriate for civil governments to enforce religious requirements or prohibitions. Many people who consider themselves “Catholic” are aware that the statement by Pope Francis is antithetical to the traditional doctrines of the Roman Church. If you rejected the principle of religious liberty behind the protest of the princes, you were never protestant in the first place.
Small correction, 1526, not 1626. The 2nd diet of Speyer was in 1529. The 'protest' was on April 19th 1529. But youre right. The term protestant had nothing to do with disagreeing with catholic doctrine.
@@ContendingEarnestly Thanks for correcting the date. The question remains as to whether it was a doctrine of the Roman Church in the sixteenth century that civil governments were obligated to promote ostensibly Christian doctrines and practices and enforce ostensibly Christian prohibitions.
@@ContendingEarnestly No. I think it was assumed by everyday concerned at the first diet of Speyer that permission for each “prince” (noble) to hold whatever religious beliefs and practice whatever religious ceremonies he could “justify before his King and God” assumed that the peasants who lived on his land would follow the lead of their landlord/employer. At that point in time, I think even the people who were inclined to agree with the reforms proposed by Luther (the protest of the princes had not yet occurred) were still of the opinion that the nobility were capable of making such decisions but that the mostly-illiterate peasants weren’t capable of making those decisions, even for themselves or their families. The decision of the second diet of Speyer to revoke the decision of the previous diet was understood, I think, in the context of the assumption that civil governments were obligated to promote the religious beliefs and practices of the majority of the people in the so-called Holy Roman Empire and to enforce the prohibitions of the Roman Church, not only with regard to actions but also with regard to “heresy”. The six princes who signed the protest to submit to the second diet of Speyer were aware that the penalty for doing so could be excommunication or burning at the stake. To people living in mostly protestant (or mostly atheist/agnostic) lands in the twenty-first century, excommunication means not much more than that the person is thereby barred from partaking of the “elements” of the Euchurist. In the sixteenth century, it meant that people loyal to the Roman Church (even close friends and relatives) were prohibited from “communicating” with the “heretic” and prohibited from buying anything from or selling anything to that person. If the person owned real estate (even a modest house), that was usually confiscated and the “heretic” was prohibited from eating the crops he himself had planted. In theory, an excommunicated person could escape to a country not dominated by the Roman Church. Because escape was virtually impossible for people with few friends and few financial resources, excommunication was very nearly as much of a death sentence as a sentence of execution for “heresy”. In this context, I think it is important to point out that most “protestants” continued, for the rest of the sixteenth century, to assume that “protestant” governments should promote protestant doctrines and practices and enforce protestant prohibitions. In the seventeenth century, the way the puritans in New England treated Anglicans, the way the Anglicans in the southern colonies treated the puritans and the way both groups treated baptists and quakers was deplorable. “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” - C. S. Lewis Religion is the sum of those beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to a person’s concept of the highest powers of the universe In the twenty-first century, people who worship Mother Earth operate on the principle that their religion isn’t theistic and therefore sould be exempt from prohibitions against government promotion of religion and government enforcement of religious prohibitions. Even if (or to the extent that) I agree with them that climate change is (partly?) due to excessive use of fossil fuels, I disagree with their use of government to promote their religious beliefs and I disagree with their use of government to impose their religious prohibitions on everyone else for our own good.
Why didn't he correct the Russian guy and tell him hes not a protestant but a born again believer in Jesus. If he is. Or, i'm not a protestant but a Christian. Thats the label i prefer.
I reacently hear one protestant saying "There is deep unity between various branch of protestants". I want to know what Soren Johnson think about that statement.
@@Kitiwake I have several videos on my channel, where I go over Eusebius, many writings of "church fathers" etc. I recommend starting with the video "Constantine's Arch (And Why It is Important)". A major fork in the road if anything.
@@johnyang1420 That is actually false. Jesus started the church with the house of Israel. Gentiles became grafted in years later. Then in AD73, just a few years after the temple became destroyed, the house became desolate, fulfilling Matthew 23:36, 38. It was not until after the house became desolate, the church became universal. The Gentiles were never a part of the judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel. The word catholic was not first used until late 1st century. The word catholic today, is referring to the institution, not the universal church today. There was the one body of Christ, but two different things were going on until the house became desolate.
Have you ever wondered the New Testament Bible was a product of the Catholic Church? The books of the New Testament does not have proof text that said it is scripture except the book of Revelation. So how do you determine the 26 books are scripture?
![[Part 1] รักมาไม่ทันตั้งตัว❤ หนุ่มสาวโสดถูกจับมาแต่งงานกันกะทันหัน แถมเธอยังเป็นหัวหน้าของเขา?!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y2pOOMkuFI0/mqdefault.jpg)
Welcome home! 🙏
I can relate to not realizing I was Protestant
Thank you for your great testimony. Welcome home brother. God is good .
I went the other way and the Eucharist IS the number 1 reasons. I couldn't be happier. I now feel full every Sunday. May you all be blessed.
There’s no mass or eucharist mentioned in scripture.
No apostle called himself a Catholic.
Amen, being one with Jesus body and soul.
@suzannemcmaken4648 Just sharing my journey Suzanne. Wishing you lots of good things
@suzannemcmaken4648 Oh, I almost forgot. acts 2:42
42 And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.
John 6:4
4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.
john 6:8-11
8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, *said to Him, 9 “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” 10 Jesus said, “Have the people [a]sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men [b]sat down, in number about five thousand. 11 Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks (eucharistēsas) , He distributed them to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish, as much as they wanted.
John 6:52-54
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
John6:51
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and also the bread which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
@@TheCoachsCoach933
The word KATHOLES is used as an ADJECTIVE, not as the proper name of a religion. Therefore, there is no mention of. Catholic/Roman Catholic “church” in all of scripture.
Welcome Home ❤
Thank you for sharing this beautiful message.
A dear friend of mine did not know that he is Protestant. He just saw himself as Evangelical Christian.
❤
In 1626, the decision of the Diet of Speyer was that every prince should hold whichever religious beliefs he could justify before his King and God.
Three years later, the Diet held in that same place revoked the earlier decision. Six German princes (nobles) created a letter of protest. King Ferdinand refused to accept it so, instead of it being read out, it was printed and made public. The English term, “protestant” was coined to refer to those German princes and was later applied to everyone who believed (and believes) that no one is bound by secular authority in matters of faith.
Pope Francis has made a distinction between certain kinds of sin and “crimes” - which I understand to mean that he agrees it is inappropriate for civil governments to enforce religious requirements or prohibitions. Many people who consider themselves “Catholic” are aware that the statement by Pope Francis is antithetical to the traditional doctrines of the Roman Church. If you rejected the principle of religious liberty behind the protest of the princes, you were never protestant in the first place.
Small correction, 1526, not 1626. The 2nd diet of Speyer was in 1529. The 'protest' was on April 19th 1529. But youre right. The term protestant had nothing to do with disagreeing with catholic doctrine.
@@ContendingEarnestly Thanks for correcting the date. The question remains as to whether it was a doctrine of the Roman Church in the sixteenth century that civil governments were obligated to promote ostensibly Christian doctrines and practices and enforce ostensibly Christian prohibitions.
@@rogermetzger7335 Are you referring to the decisions of the first diet of Speyer?
@@ContendingEarnestly No. I think it was assumed by everyday concerned at the first diet of Speyer that permission for each “prince” (noble) to hold whatever religious beliefs and practice whatever religious ceremonies he could “justify before his King and God” assumed that the peasants who lived on his land would follow the lead of their landlord/employer. At that point in time, I think even the people who were inclined to agree with the reforms proposed by Luther (the protest of the princes had not yet occurred) were still of the opinion that the nobility were capable of making such decisions but that the mostly-illiterate peasants weren’t capable of making those decisions, even for themselves or their families.
The decision of the second diet of Speyer to revoke the decision of the previous diet was understood, I think, in the context of the assumption that civil governments were obligated to promote the religious beliefs and practices of the majority of the people in the so-called Holy Roman Empire and to enforce the prohibitions of the Roman Church, not only with regard to actions but also with regard to “heresy”. The six princes who signed the protest to submit to the second diet of Speyer were aware that the penalty for doing so could be excommunication or burning at the stake.
To people living in mostly protestant (or mostly atheist/agnostic) lands in the twenty-first century, excommunication means not much more than that the person is thereby barred from partaking of the “elements” of the Euchurist. In the sixteenth century, it meant that people loyal to the Roman Church (even close friends and relatives) were prohibited from “communicating” with the “heretic” and prohibited from buying anything from or selling anything to that person. If the person owned real estate (even a modest house), that was usually confiscated and the “heretic” was prohibited from eating the crops he himself had planted.
In theory, an excommunicated person could escape to a country not dominated by the Roman Church. Because escape was virtually impossible for people with few friends and few financial resources, excommunication was very nearly as much of a death sentence as a sentence of execution for “heresy”.
In this context, I think it is important to point out that most “protestants” continued, for the rest of the sixteenth century, to assume that “protestant” governments should promote protestant doctrines and practices and enforce protestant prohibitions. In the seventeenth century, the way the puritans in New England treated Anglicans, the way the Anglicans in the southern colonies treated the puritans and the way both groups treated baptists and quakers was deplorable.
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” - C. S. Lewis
Religion is the sum of those beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to a person’s concept of the highest powers of the universe
In the twenty-first century, people who worship Mother Earth operate on the principle that their religion isn’t theistic and therefore sould be exempt from prohibitions against government promotion of religion and government enforcement of religious prohibitions. Even if (or to the extent that) I agree with them that climate change is (partly?) due to excessive use of fossil fuels, I disagree with their use of government to promote their religious beliefs and I disagree with their use of government to impose their religious prohibitions on everyone else for our own good.
Why didn't he correct the Russian guy and tell him hes not a protestant but a born again believer in Jesus. If he is. Or, i'm not a protestant but a Christian. Thats the label i prefer.
Yes relativism.
...boy, if they could of just scooted the camera over a tad to include Jesus pointing...🥴
Did you just deny the centrality of Christ?
I reacently hear one protestant saying "There is deep unity between various branch of protestants". I want to know what Soren Johnson think about that statement.
They're united in opposing Catholicism
@@wms72 Hard to denied that.
@@wms72 We are united in the gospel and all false religions. Not just catholicism.
@@wms72 another nasty comment from a Catholic? Do you Catholics have any charity?😢
I can never become Catholic myself, knowing the history.
The "history" you were taught is false.
Maybe you think you know the history.
@@Kitiwake I have several videos on my channel, where I go over Eusebius, many writings of "church fathers" etc. I recommend starting with the video "Constantine's Arch (And Why It is Important)". A major fork in the road if anything.
Jesus started Catholic church.
@@johnyang1420 That is actually false. Jesus started the church with the house of Israel. Gentiles became grafted in years later. Then in AD73, just a few years after the temple became destroyed, the house became desolate, fulfilling Matthew 23:36, 38. It was not until after the house became desolate, the church became universal. The Gentiles were never a part of the judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel. The word catholic was not first used until late 1st century. The word catholic today, is referring to the institution, not the universal church today. There was the one body of Christ, but two different things were going on until the house became desolate.
No Catholicism mentioned in scripture.
No apostle ever mentioned a eucharist or mass.
Have you ever wondered the New Testament Bible was a product of the Catholic Church?
The books of the New Testament does not have proof text that said it is scripture except the book of Revelation.
So how do you determine the 26 books are scripture?
And certainly no protestants mentioned in there.
Wow that just shows how much you dont understand the Eucharist or the.Church
@@Kitiwakeyes...the spirit of protestantism are manifested in John 6:66.
Where does scripture say it must be in bible? Still….Matthew 16:13-19, Luke 10:16
Religion. It's not bad enough that people come on and admit to falling for the biggest scam ever, but actually brag about it. 😂
thank you for persecuting us. We count it a great blessing. May God be with you! Peace to you and your family!
Yeah, I agree Jesus starting a Church that still exists to this day, is actually the biggest scam of all time.
@@st.michaelthearchangelorth1055
You’re not being persecuted. Too funny.
@@suzannemcmaken4648trolling isn't persecution?
@@suzannemcmaken4648 mockery is persecution. So again, thank you and God bless you, Suzanne!