Post by KristianPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by DKleineckeThis is much less complicated than the conventional Islam or
conventional Christian monotheism. I believe that such a strict
monotheism is possible within Christianity and from such a point of
view Christianity and Islam are virtually indistinguishable.
But all these conclusions are possible for you _only_ because you confuse
'Christianity' and 'Ebionitism'.
He is not "confused" at all.
Yes, he is, but not nearly as confused as you are. But we should
expect you to use confusion as an excuse for slander, since you have
already revealed yourself to be an apostate, a treachereous snake who
betrayed the Church that offered you safe haven.
Post by KristianIts you who is confused.
Easy to say, hard to prove -- since it is false.
Post by KristianVast majority of Christian scholars, both Protestant and Catholic
acknowledge Ebionitism is Christianity,
Again, easy to say, hard to prove. Especially since it is false.
But it is especially ironic that _you_ should appeal to the majority
opinion here, since you reject their majority opinion almost
everywhere else. You even reject it so radically that you turned your
back on Christianity completely, forsaking it for that most abominable
parody of religion, Islam.
Post by Kristianparticularly Semitic Christianity. It is not only wrong but also
dishonest to pretend that the Russian Orthodox Church (which is
actually part of Greek Orthodox denomination) is the sole Orthodox
Church.
And this shows yet again just how confused you are. I never _did_
"pretend that the Russian Orthodox Church is the sole Orthodox
Church".
And no, "(which is actually part of Greek Orthodox denomination)"
makes no sense. It is not a 'denomination'. For the Orthodox Church is
NOT divided into 'denominations'. Only the non-Orthodox confessions
are so divisible. This is one of the things both Greek and Russian
Orthodox agree on.
Post by KristianThere are three rival Orthodox Christian families according to
Wikipedia : -
You quote _Wikipedia_ as a source about such matters? This is yet
another sign of your deep confusion. But perhaps your confusion would
not be so bad if you had understood the words you yourself quote:
Wikipedia says "Orthodox Christian FAMILIES". It did NOT say "Orthodox
Christian Churches".
Unlike you, the Wikipedia authors knew better.
Post by Kristian1. Chalcedonian Orthodox (so-called Eastern Orthodox or Melchites)
You are misusing the word 'Melchite'. What is worse, you are misusing
it in exactly the way enemies of Christ's Church misused it centuries
ago.
Post by Kristian2. Non Chalcedonian Orthodox (so called Oriental Orthodox or
Monophysites)
But this is a nonsense term. They are not Orthodox if they reject
Chalcedon. It really is that simple.
Post by Kristian3. Non Ephesus Orthodox (so called Assyrian Orthodox or Nestorians)
Eastern Orthodox or Melchites are GREEK Orthodox as they were founded
by Emperor Marcian who called the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.
Emperor Marcian? Where on earth do you _get_ this nonsense?
Post by KristianArab Orthodox Churches, such as COPTIC
Coptic Arab? Don't make me laugh. Every Copt I know would feel very
offended at being called 'Arab' as you just did. They are _Egyptian_
not Arab; descendants of the Pharoahs, NOT of the Arab invaders.
Post by Kristianand SYRIAC rejected the Council of Chalcedon as they opposed creation
of a State Church, the Melchite Church or Greek Church.
More confusion and nonsense: Chalcedon has NOTHING to do with the
"creation of a State Church". In fact, the creation of State Churches
is nothing new to the Monophysite world. Armenia has the first "state
church" in all Christendom.
Post by KristianYou see, it is _only_ you, Matthew who calls the Greek Orthodox Church
as the Orthodox Church to fool others.
It is you who is doing the 'fooling'. And I daresay you are not
successful at fooling anyone other than yourself.
Post by KristianBut for 2000 years, the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Armenian
Orthodox Church have always called themselves as Orthodox Church.
Even this is highly misleading. They did not merely "call themselves"
this. Rather, before they broke away after Chalcedon, _everyone_
called them Orthodox, but always understanding them as a sister
Orthodox Church sister to the Roman, Greek, Georgian and Celtic
Churches, _never_ applying the term 'Orthodox' just to them.
Post by KristianThat's why they were persecuted by the Chalcedonian Melchites.
No, they were 'persecuted' for their obstinacy, warring against both
Church and Emperor.
Post by KristianDo not just look at the history of your own Church but look at the
histories of other Orthodox Churches and you will be surprised that
Orthodox Christianity cannot even agree on the number of Ecumenical
No, rather, because unlike you, I _have_ studied it, I know how wrong
you are. The _Orthodox_ agree on exactly 7 Ecumenical Councils. Anyone
who adds or subtracts to that is NOT Orthodox.
Post by KristianCouncils - some say 2, others 3, and still others 7 and remaining 9.
Who among them is correct?
Why, those who accept exactly 7, of course;)
Post by KristianThat's why I left the Greek Orthodox
Church (or if you prefer Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow).
And that is a really poor reason. Nor do I believe it is your real
reason. Your real reason must be somethimg much darker. You prove this
with your insatiable appetite for slander against the Church, scraping
the bottom of the barrel of misinformation and disinformation.
Post by KristianPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by DKleineckeIt stems from the Christianity of the Ebionites.
And why are you so easily convinced of this? There is more obvious borrowing
from Arab/Syrian Monophysites. Do you believe that Monophysitism itself borrows
from the Ebionites?
You are a very rude man to call the Arab Orthodox Christians,
That's funny coming from you.
Post by Kristianparticularly Syriac Orthodox Church as Monophysites. They were not,
Yes, they are. This is _obvious_ from reading the works of their
'Saint' Dioscorus, who was not only Monophysite, but an _extreme_
monophysite.
Post by Kristianare not and have always denied the lie by the Ecumenical Council of
Chalcedon (that defined the dogma of infallibility of the Bishop of
Rome) that they are Monophysites.
How much confusion can you pack in one sentence? Chalcedon by no means
"defined the dogma of infallibility of the Bishop of Rome". That is a
late fiction. Why, the version of the dogma mentioned in connection
with the council does not even match that defined at Vatican I.
As if this was not bad enough, the site
http://www.evangelical-catholicism.com/2007/04/infallibility-debates-subsidiary.html
points out that Chalcedon was actually cited _against_ the dogma of
infallibility. They even call infallibility "the bastard child of
unruly force".
You really do not shrink from slander no matter how gross, do you? You
do not shrink from it no matter how badly you expose your own
ignorance, do you?
Post by KristianChalcedon wanted to usurp the papal throne of Dioscorus so it
conviniently defrocked and ex-communicated him on a lie and handed
the papal throne to the Bishop of Rome, Leo I the Great.
This, of course, is absolute nonsense. They usurped nothing. On the
contrary: Dioscorus was justly punished for his own highly uncanonical
and unchristian actions at the "Robber Council".
Again, if you had any substance behind your boasts, if you knew any
real history, you would know this.
Post by KristianIn fact, if you read His Holiness Pope Benjamin I writings, you will
realise that the, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church during the time
of the Islamic invasion, he tells us of persecutions by the Greek
Orthodox Melchite Patriarch Cyrus who even threw the Orthodox Pope's
brother into the sea to drown. At no time does he call himself a
Monophysite but an Orthodox Christian from the Catholic Church.
And if you read a less biased historian, you would realize that it was
the Monophysite Copts who lead far bloodier persecutions against both
'melchites' and Nestorians.
But even more important, if you knew the history at all, you would
know this Cyrus was NOT Orthodox: he was MONOTHELITE.
Post by KristianArab Christians are NOT Monophysites
Yes, they are. This should be obvious from their attachment to the
teachings of 'Saint' Dioscorus, with his fanatical and one-sided
misquotation os St. Cyril's "one nature of the incarnate word".
Post by Kristianbut the Europeans created this lie to usurp the title "Pope".
The lie is yours. There is no 'usurpation' here. Both Coptic Pope and
Roman Pope shared the title 'Pope', with no contention between them
for it FOR MANY centuries. The contention between them is over
theology, not the title 'Pope'.
Why, Pope Benedict is an excellent example of this, since he freely
calls Shenouda III 'Pope'.
Post by KristianPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by DKleineckeHistory is written by the winners and the conventional
Christianity has written the Ebionites out of Christianity.
And that "history written by the winners" is so much better than
that "history written by the whiners".
Were the Greek Orthodox Byzantines the winners or whiners?
That's easy to answer, 'winners';)
Post by KristianThey were certainly not winners but whiners
It was so easy to answer, yet you got it wrong anyway.
Post by Kristian- the losers and history is a witness of that.
Ever since you appeared in this NG, you have shown no ability to
understand history. On the contrary: you have shown only the ability
to _grossly_ misunderstand it.
Here is no exception. The Greek Orthodox Church was the winner,
because after falling under the yoke of Turkish rule, the history of
theological innovation leading to heresies came to and end.
Also because the Russian Church (which you insist on calling part of
the Greek Church) remained free.
Post by KristianGod punished the Melchites greatly when he used Islam to save the
Arab Orthodox Christians, particularly Coptic Orthodox Church and
Syriac Orthodox Church from the Melchite oppressor,
You are the _only_ person I have ever heard call that 'saving'. Every
Copt I know recognizes it for what it was, the beginning of a
different kind of oppression.
Post by Kristianin particular Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyrus
the Melchite.
What are you talking about? He was _not_ Orthodox at all, but
Monothelite. This is yet another example of how you prefer slander to
speaking the truth.
Post by KristianWhere is the Byzantine Empire? Its gone completely,
No, it is not. Remember that a member of the Byzantine Emperor's
family married into the Ryurik Dynasty. The Byzantine Empire really
did pass the torch of Byzantine civilization to Russia.
Post by Kristianoh wait, the Greek colonisers of Turkey were driven out by native
Turks in 1453 C.E. :-)
You cannot use a smiley to cover up the absurdity of your perversion
of history. Your so-called 'native Turks' are themselves newcomers to
Asia Minor. They came from Central Asia, pushed out by the Mongols.
The Greeks were there in Asia Minor centuries, even _millenia_ ahead
of them.
When will you stop showing off your pathetic ignorance?
Post by KristianToday, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople is facing a
crisis from Turkish Orthodox Christians who demand expulsion from
Bartholomew I and appointing a native Turk. They already approached
the Muslim Prime Minister Erdogan to ask him to arrest Bartholomew I
and appoint Hassan Sezer as the new Patriarch.
And with your so-called great knowledge of Church history and affairs,
you should know why this demand of theirs is completely
unreasonable. If it was bad when the Byzantine state interferred in
Patriarchal elections, it can only be worse when the Turks try it.
Post by KristianPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by DKleineckeBut they have, in fact, a better claim to be the true Christian
church than does the Orthodox church.
So you love to repeat. But when challenged for this groundless
repetition, the only support you can offer _is_ "history written by
the whiners".
It is you who love to repeat but when we challenge you for your
groundless repetition,
This is total nonsense. The groundless repetition is _so_ obviously
yours.
Post by Kristianthe only support you can offer is history written by the Greek
Orthodox whiners who pretend they are the _only_ Orthodox Church out
there!
This is such a gross mis-statement it reveals you as either a total
idiot or a shameless liar. I have referenced the histories written by
_many_ others who are not Greek Orthodox.
Post by KristianThere are so many, such as Coptic Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia, and the Old Calenderists to name a few.
You show your ignorance yet again! The Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia has just completed its reunification with the Moscow
Patriarchate. For very _unlike_ you, they recognized that despite all
the many problems in the Patriarchate, it is in that Patriarchate that
Russia is experiencing the great revival of piety and true Orthodoxy
that St. Seraphim of Sarov predicted. So there is no doubt in the
minds of the leading bishops of the ROCOR synod: the Moscow
Patriarchate is truly Orthodox.
This also means that at least some of the Greek and Romanian Old
Calendarists have reached the same conclusion, since they maintain
communion with ROCOR
BTW: didn't you know? The Moscow Patriarchate _is_ Old Calendarist. If
you didn't know that, you are even more pathetically ignorant than I
thought. Yet you really don't seem to know, since you list "Old
Calendarists" as a idfferent Church than the Moscow Patriarchate.
So to summarize: not only is your ignorance of even basic Church
history glaring, your presumption is the most glaring I have seen in
this NG yet.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)