What is the true congregation?

[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.