What is the true congregation?

[jonojim1337]

James 4:1-5 Galatians 5:17 Romans 8:7 Matthew 5:18-20 Mark 7:21-23 1 John 2:16 Jeremiah 17:9 Isaiah 57:20-21 Romans 7:5-23 ———— Matthew 5:44-45 James 2:8 Isaiah 2:4 Micah 4:3 Matthew 5:9 James 3:18 Psalm 46:9

Sorry, I don’t get what you are trying to say with these verses. What does this have to do with the ordinance of God put forth in Acts?

 

[jonojim1337]

Study what these verses say and compare them with the what the line of conversation has been.

“Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, f“The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?”

No one here has denied that that God is a jealous god and that all sin will be accounted for. The other verses seem to be saying the same thing in different manners.

 

[jonojim1337]

Given the violent history of both church and state how does that mesh with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles ?

Well, that is a large topic. To give you a short answer, it has mostly been a war between principalities of the Empire where some simply failed to follow the ordinance of God as regards to the governing authorities i.e. rulers.

There are cases however, such as St. Lawrence, who, in my opinion, failed to honor the authorities in a sufficient manner. Knowing the prefect was on his way to collect Church goods, he decided to give it all to the poor, in defiance. This has fallen under the category of Christian persecution, however, he was not persecuted for his faith in Christ but rather his audacity before the authorities. Of course no one can deny his act of mercy and I am in no way saying he doesn’t deserve to be saintified, but maybe he didn’t have to give it all away, or maybe the prefect could’ve taken the goods he presented, but in any case, this was a personal quarrel and not a persecution because of a confessed faith in Christ.

Likewise there are many such cases where personal quarrels around what I would consider petty matters that caused tension between individual Christians and the authorities that didn’t immediately entail their faith in Christ. Another such example would be if the relatives of Christ deserve an elevated status and veneration as well.

So there was some quarreling.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ok, so can you elaborate what ecclesial standing you are talking about here? I’m Orthodox, and as far as I know, we consider the other denominations of the Apostolic faith to be just that, Apostolic. This is true regardless if we are in communion with them or not.

I’m also Orthodox. Specifically, St. Cyprian’s view, which is preferred by most Orthodox jurisdictions, is that Apostolic Succession requires Orthodoxy, unlike the view of St. Augustine. Whether or not an Orthodox church would regard another as Apostolic depends, for example, the Antiochian Orthodox have a very close relationship with the Syriac Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria have a very close relationship with the Coptic Orthodox (while the Church of Greece has a bishop who has accused the Copts of heresies that the Coptic Orthodox church is innocent of), and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has developed a very close relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.

Which specific Eastern Orthodox church are you a member of, to be clear? I’m a member of the Orthodox Church in America, which is the autocephalous Orthodox Church (granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970) that is the canonical church in Alaska, and elsewhere in the US is one of several Orthodox churches along with ROCOR, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which manages a few other jurisdictions in North America such as the UOCNA and ACROD), the Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox, the Bulgarian Orthodox and the Georgian Orthodox, and the Patriarchal parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate (I believe that’s a complete list of canonical Orthodox churches in North America). Prior to the rise of the Soviet Union the whole area was basically the canonical territory of the Russian church, but in the chaos that followed the Bolshevik takeover, we wound up with the irregular situation of competing jurisdictions, which also developed in Western Europe and the other lands of the diaspora.

Since you’re in Sweden, you could be a member of one of several Eastern Orthodox churches - this is relevant because I can link you to specific information for that church relating to the issue of the role of the Roman Empire, views on ecumenical relations, and so on.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ok, so can you elaborate what ecclesial standing you are talking about here? I’m Orthodox, and as far as I know, we consider the other denominations of the Apostolic faith to be just that, Apostolic. This is true regardless if we are in communion with them or not.



Ok. So their TRAP was related to taxes, but his ANSWER is related to everything that is Caesar’s.

Yes, but it says nothing about the church being connected to Caesar - you’re reading between the lines where nothing is written.

Indeed even from Fr. John C. Romanides with his highly Roman-centric view of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire, I haven’t seen this particular argument.

 

[The Liturgist]

who, in my opinion, failed to honor the authorities in a sufficient manner. Knowing the prefect was on his way to collect Church goods, he decided to give it all to the poor, in defiance.

That’s a very controversial opinion and one which would be rejected by most Orthodox Christians. St. Lawrence is universally venerated as a Great Martyr.

 

[jonojim1337]

Yes, but it says nothing about the church being connected to Caesar - you’re reading between the lines where nothing is written.

Kings and priests are two entirely distinct classes and have different ordinances. Of course the priest-king, or pontifex maximus, is the head of the Church. In the Bible it is the order of Melchizedek.

Indeed even from Fr. John C. Romanides with his highly Roman-centric view of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire, I haven’t seen this particular argument.

Well in the Orthodox denomination, Christ is clearly portrayed as a Roman emperor, as his red and purple garments in the icons will show, likewise worn by his relatives.

 

[jonojim1337]

That’s a very controversial opinion and one which would be rejected by most Orthodox Christians. St. Lawrence is universally venerated as a Great Martyr.

Well there’s no commandment from Christ to sacrifice oneself for the sake of Church goods. I think he actually says the opposite. But in any case, just because one is ordained as ruler doesn’t mean one will always do the right thing either. I think the Bible is full of God ordained rulers doing the wrong thing.

 

[jonojim1337]

Might as well drop this one here too:

 

[jonojim1337]

And lest we forget:

 

[The Liturgist]

Well in the Orthodox denomination, Christ is clearly portrayed as a Roman emperor, as his red and purple garments in the icons will show, likewise worn by his relatives.

Not true; in the famous icon depicting Christ and Emperor Justinian in the Hagia Sophia, you can see Emperor Justinian wearing a toga and stole which is quite different than the resplendent robes worn by Christ our God.

Also, insofar as the Roman Empire was a thing of holiness, it was not the first Christian government, that was the Kingdom of Edessa, converted in 301 AD, the first Christian nation was the Kingdom of Armenia, converted by St. Gregory the Illuminator (who we venerate, as well as the Armenians) in 306 AD, and the Roman Empire was the sixth, under St. Theodosius when he finally banned Paganism and smashed the Altar of Victory around 390 AD (in the interim, Georgia and Ethiopia both converted to Christianity).

Now, St. Constantine the Great did embrace Christianity and legalize it under the Edict of Milan, but his heir Constantius was an Arian heretic, and Julian the Apostate was a Neo-Platonist; there was not another Christian Emperor until St. Theodosius, and it was only under Theodosius that the Roman Empire declared Christianity its official religion. Shortly thereafter it split into the Eastern and Western Empires, the Western Empire was overrun by Visigoths (who were Arian) and collapsed, and the Eastern Empire persisted until Turkocratia.

By the way there are a large number of Eastern Orthodox members of this forum - @prodromos @jas3 @FenderTL5 @HTacianas - in the event we are making any mistake, our pious brethren will correct us, if we invite them to do so.

And to be clear, I am not completely rejecting your arguments; some of what you have said I agree with - I simply feel that, even more than Fr. John C. Romanides, you’re making an Orthodox == Roman association which is relevant only to the Eastern Orthodox Christians of the former Eastern Roman Empire, who identify using the demonym of Rum in the case of Antiochian and Alexandrian Greek-speaking Christians, Romiioi in the case of some other Greek-speakers, and Romanians in the case of the Wallachians, Moldavians, Bessarabians and Transylvanians who speak the Romance language related to Aromanian and the lost Dalmatian language.

 

[jonojim1337]

Not true; in the famous icon depicting Christ and Emperor Justinian in the Hagia Sophia, you can see Emperor Justinian wearing a toga and stole which is quite different than the resplendent robes worn by Christ our God.

In the same church, you can see Christ in blue or purple garment, which signifies the Roman aristocracy. But you will find plenty of icons as I described, so it was no lie.

Also, insofar as the Roman Empire was a thing of holiness, it was not the first Christian government, that was the Kingdom of Edessa, converted in 301 AD, the first Christian nation was the Kingdom of Armenia, converted by St. Gregory the Illuminator (who we venerate, as well as the Armenians) in 306 AD, and the Roman Empire was the sixth, under St. Theodosius when he finally banned Paganism and smashed the Altar of Victory around 390 AD (in the interim, Georgia and Ethiopia both converted to Christianity).

Now, St. Constantine the Great did embrace Christianity and legalize it under the Edict of Milan, but his heir Constantius was an Arian heretic, and Julian the Apostate was a Neo-Platonist; there was not another Christian Emperor until St. Theodosius, and it was only under Theodosius that the Roman Empire declared Christianity its official religion. Shortly thereafter it split into the Eastern and Western Empires, the Western Empire was overrun by Visigoths (who were Arian) and collapsed, and the Eastern Empire persisted until Turkocratia.

By the way there are a large number of Eastern Orthodox members of this forum - @prodromos @jas3 @FenderTL5 @HTacianas - in the event we are making any mistake, our pious brethren will correct us, if we invite them to do so.

That’s the official, post-Reformist, Scaligerian history version, yes.

And to be clear, I am not completely rejecting your arguments; some of what you have said I agree with - I simply feel that, even more than Fr. John C. Romanides, you’re making an Orthodox == Roman association which is relevant only to the Eastern Orthodox Christians of the former Eastern Roman Empire, who identify using the demonym of Rum in the case of Antiochian and Alexandrian Greek-speaking Christians, Romiioi in the case of some other Greek-speakers, and Romanians in the case of the Wallachians, Moldavians, Bessarabians and Transylvanians who speak the Romance language related to Aromanian and the lost Dalmatian language.

There’s more to it than just that. I can refer you to the research of Moscow State University.

History: Science or Fiction?

A person encountering the "New Chronology" of Fomenko-Nosovsky for the first time experiences a shock, apparently greater than the one any of us would feel s...

youtube.com

This is a 24-part series made some time ago. They have more research on the actual channel.

 

[The Liturgist]

the same church, you can see Christ in blue or purple garment,

Roman Emperors did not historically wear blue - they wore a purple Toga or the Toga Pretexta, but by the time of the Hagia Sophia that would have been out of fashion for some time.

 

[The Liturgist]

That’s the official, post-Reformist, Scaligerian history version, yes.

No, its what our own liturgical and historical texts as well as those of the Latins, Armenians, Ethiopians and Syriacs say.

 

[jonojim1337]

No, its what our own liturgical and historical texts as well as those of the Latins, Armenians, Ethiopians and Syriacs say.

What’s the date of the oldest copy…

Also do these copies offer dates.

 

[jonojim1337]

Roman Emperors did not historically wear blue - they wore a purple Toga or the Toga Pretexta, but by the time of the Hagia Sophia that would have been out of fashion for some time.

There are plenty of icons with either red, purple, or both, with clear imperial embroiderment. Just do a Google search.

In this particular case, it looks somewhere between blue and purple. It can be the picture quality, the shape and style of the mosaic itself. But in any case, you can see underneath he has finely embroidered Byzantine vesture, and overall it is not working class attire.