Tell me about orthodoxy. Is Jerusalem the numbero uno city? Where and when was the orthodox church founded? Crusades? A few things I should know about the religion and last but not least. How did it end up in countries like Russia and Ukraine etc?
>>1012557
> Tell me about orthodoxy. Is Jerusalem the numbero uno city?
Kinda, but actually it's Constantinople.
> Where and when was the orthodox church founded?
In 30 AD Palestine by Jesus.
> Crusades?
Papist traitors.
> A few things I should know about the religion
It's the closest you can get to the early Christian church in terms of teachings and organization.
> How did it end up in countries like Russia and Ukraine etc?
Because Kiev was the capital of the early Rus' principality, and Kiev sits on the Dniepr river, Dnepr flows into the Black Sea, and the main port on the Black Sea is Tsargrad/Constantinople. So Greeks were the main trade partners of Russians at the time, resulting in cultural and political influence. Had Capital of Rus' be somewhere on the Volga river, which flows into the Caspian sea, East Slavs would be Muslims.
>Jesus ascends to Heaven
>Apostles spread the Gospel
>Christians thrive under persecution
>Emperor Constantine """"converts""""
>Faith becomes compromised and mixed with paganism
>Catholicism is born
>Roman empire is split between West and East
>Papal Rome keeps inventing new doctrines and unscriptural shit just for power and politics
>East drifts away from West and does not acknowledge Tha Pope Man™
>East becomes known as Orthodoxy
>West becomes known as Roman Catholicism
fast forward to the 15th century
>Europe is like: "enough of your shit Rome, we want to return to real true Christianity"
>Protestant Reformation is born
>Catholic Spain takes South-American shitholes
>Protestant England takes North-America and there is a revival in Biblical Christianity
>Orthodoxy is just chilling in Eastern Europe and the Middle-East.
>>1012594
Pauline Christianity is the closest you can get to the early Christian church.
Orthodox = Catholicism without a pope
>>1012594
Not OP, but does orthodoxy have a central leader? like a head patriarch?
>>1012594
So crusading is a no go for the orthodox? Wanna get some of these like kinda small fact things in check as I am considering converting to Orthodoxy with the new pope, not that fact alone but you get what I mean.
>>1012594
So do you Orthodox heretics just ignore that Jesus built his Church on Peter and not some egalitarian b.s. your kind push?
>>1012639
>this is what Papists actually believe
Jesus is referring Himself as the rock.
Christ is the cornerstone.
>>1012604
Yes, but his position is merely ceremonial, he wields little executive power in the Churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarch_of_Constantinople
>>1012603
Orthodoxy is the modern form of Pauline Christianity transmitted through unbroken tradition.
>>1012604
Ecumenical Patriarch may be the closest thing to the Pope, but he lives in Muslim Istanbul and has no authority at all. Traditionally national Orthodox churches were more or less autonomous ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephaly ). Some can say the Russian Patriarch is kinda the leading figure, since Russian church by far the largest and richest one, but he has no authority outside Russian Church neither.
>>1012624
Orthodox fought Muslims non-stop since the beginning, first Byzantine and then Russians. It was ERE who held them off for 800 years and it was Russia who eventually kicked them out of the Europe. Meanwhile "Crusading" was a kind of glorified war tourism for bored papists, an excuse for plunder and rape, they fucked the shit up and then destroyed ERE, resulting in Turkish conquests in Europe. Modern Crusader circlejerk is one huge hypocrisy.
>>1012663
OP
Thanks for clearing it out and giving me answers, my man. God bless.
>>1012663 What would you recommend as sort of the Orthodoxy 101 book to read?
>>1012687
Catechism, obviously.
>>1012732
Maybe something with a little more overview? History and progression of belief?
>>1012594
Great looking chart, too bad it ignores the splits of the nestorians and non-chalcedonians
>>1012687
Both The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware are great entry points to Orthodoxy.
Church focuses more on the history and religious structure of the Church, whilst Way is more about spirituality and deep theological doctrines (and what they mean for a believer.) Both are very accessible whilst providing solid groundwork.
>how did it end up in Russia
A Russian prince was deciding whether to adopt Roman christianity, Greek christianity or islam. Greek christianity won because they had the "prettiest churches".
I'm not even kidding, go look it up.
>>1012594
There were no Russians in the Volga region back then.
>>1013201
Yeah, and Islam lose because it prohibits alcohol. This is an interesting legend, but the adoption of Orthodoxy was a pragmatic choice based on cultural and political influences. ERE at the time was at its heights with Basil II slaying Bulgars and reconquering Antioch. ERE being the main trade partner, it's not wonder Vladimir decided to emulate them and to centralize the state along the way. Bulgars and Serbs did the same.
>>1013209
Yea, I know, I was just speculating.
>>1013257
>Islam lost because it prohibits alcohol
No just, loving God would keep the Slav from his vodka.
Filoquist innovators with pewed congregations haven't the right to call themselves Christian imho.
>>1012642
No, Jesus was playing a pun of Peter name which means hard stone.
>you are Peter and on this rock I build my Church
Stupid dumb Orthodox scum.
>>1013305
Vodka hasn't been invented back then though, the main alcoholic drinks were beer and mead.
>>1012601
>this innovation meme
Defining doctrine isn't innovation. It's "hey we all believe this concept, let's define and codify it based on how it stacks up with scripture."
Thus you have stuff like Co-mediatrix, which just exists to define Mary's role in Salvation (co comes from cum meaning with, it does not mean equal)
>>1013561
t. Butthurt papist cuck
Take forty Muslim rapefugees and illegal Mexicans and put them in your daughter/sister/wife's bedroom.
>>1013561
> hey we all believe this concept, let's define and codify it based on how it stacks up with scripture.
Hey, some of us believe in this filioque concept, let's define and codify it despite it having no basis in scripture or tradition and directly contradicting Nicaean Creed.
Hey, the current Pope believe in this celibacy for priests thing, let's define and codify it despite it being obvious innovation without any historical basis.
Hey, there are these superstitious believes about Mary some of our peasants believe, let's define and codify it despite it having no basis in scripture or tradition.
>>1013397
Keep thinking Peter is the Rock and not Jesus.
Keep thinking Petros is the petra.
>>1012601
Breddy gud summary.
>Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
>>1013666
Another papist betrayed by satanic trips.
>>1013666
Jesus gives the same authority to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18? Jesus says, "Truly I say to you (the disciples), whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What apparently had been granted to Peter only is now extended to all the apostles. Therefore, if Peter is to be the supreme successor of Christ who has the keys to the kingdom to be able to bind and loose, then why is this same right also granted to the other disciples?
>>1013397
1 Pet. 5:1-2, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;”
If Peter was supreme among the apostles, why does he state he is a fellow elder instead of asserting his supremacy? Did Peter not recognize his position given to him by Christ? The Roman Catholic Church certainly affirms the primacy of the papal office as a cited above. Apparently, the Roman Catholic pope has no problem proclaiming such self-affirmations. Yet, this is not what Peter does in Scripture. One has to wonder why the pope in the present Roman Catholic Church does not follow the lead of Peter who they claim to follow. Nevertheless, Peter does not affirm his own supremacy. In fact, he does the contrary by saying that he is a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ.
>>1013678
Yes, the apostles including Peter and their successors are given rightly the authority over doctrinal matters. How is "innovation" then so damning if it is their expressed right to do so?
>>1012557
>Papists defending Peter's primacy
We aren't talking about Peter though, you still have to show that
1) Apostolic primacy should be expressed this particular way and not any other way.
2) Apostolic primacy can be inherited by the holder of the same position. This is the hard one.
3) Jesus' understanding of primacy wasn't "primus inter pares" but some kind of autocracy.
4) The Popes are the heirs of Peter.
I mean, after Peter was executed yet other original apostles were still alive(John for example), who held the primacy, they or Peter's successors as bishop of Rome? Why there is no tradition of supreme authority of bishop of Rome over the entire church until Charlemagne?
>>1013692
Because there's only one pope, not 12, and it's based on an alleged inheritance from Peter, not from all of the disciples.
>>1013739
The hard one has to be where the dying "pope" hands off the "keys to heaven" to his successor.
>>1012594
>It's the closest you can get to the early Christian church in terms of teachings and organization.
Basically this. Roman Catholicism is a scam.
>>1013800
I've never seen an Orthodox christian properly explain the gospel. It's the same as Rome. Join our church, be baptized in our church by our priests, and you're golden.
>>1013817
No; salavation is isn't throught the church as the orthodox church says. It's throught faith in jesus christ and then by works
>>1013817
This is the doctrine of the orthodox church!
>>1013826
>and then by works
Spotted the papist and lover of James, hater of Paul.
>>1013829
Kind of what I gathered. Faith in a church.
So sad.
>>1013638
Why don't you like "Proceeds from... the Son?" Not just muh innovations! but actual reasons why it's wrong and the Holy Spirit cannot proceed from the Son as He does the Father?
>>1013647
So why'd he start calling Simon Barjona "Peter" AND THEN say "upon this Rock?"
Yeah semantics on "oh that's not the spelling used" or whatever aside, why call him Peter?
>>1014021
Jesus called Peter "Petros".
Jesus called the foundation "petra".
One word is a masculine name; the other word is a feminine word for rock.
Jesus is the Rock. Always has been, always will be. The church is built on "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", the petra Petros uttered seconds before this exchange.
The church is built upon Jesus, and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with Scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God but never of a man.
Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Rome is Babylon, and Babylon is confusion.
>>1013982
>Not just muh innovations!
This is reason enough, actually. Creed we have was established by the ecumenical councils and you can't just change it whenever you like. Filioque was invented in 6-7th centuries to counter Arianism of german invaders in the West, and it this it comes close to establish hierarchy among persons of the Trinity: Father > Son > Holy Spirit. This is completely unnecessary innovation to accept into established text of the Creed.
>>1013757
The idea is Peter as an office wields the keys and when he died, the keys went to his successor as that office was taken.
>>1013817
Catholics believe non-Catholic baptisms are valid.
>>1013852
>Catholics hate Paul
Um, no we don't.
>>1014062
Yes, I understand the lie from the pit of hell quite well, thank you.
>>1014073
kek
Not a chance.
>>1014076
For it is by faith you have been saved, and that not of yourself; it is a gift from God, and not of works, lest any man should boast.
Faith without works is dead.
Pick one.
>>1014062
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as His redeemed, need to keep our eyes on Him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus--not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
Believing the bible is the authoritative Word of God and believing in the Roman Catholic Church are mutually exclusive.
>>1014062
Idea of Peter being a hereditary "office" one can be elected into requires huge mental gymnastic to accept. It doesn't help that nowhere in the Gospels anyone say something about "offices", "position" and stuff, nor is there any mention of Rome being some kind of magical place where the true heirs of Peter must be elected.
>>1014057
That doesn't explain why he basically just called Simon "Rocko."
Why did Jesus call Simon "Peter" and then say "upon this Rock" if he wasn't talking about Peter being the rock but Himself as the Rock? All you did is quote passages where God says He's a Rock. There is no explanation there for why Jesus called Peter "Rock." Why did Jesus call Peter "Rock?"
>Rome is Babylon
Oh right, I'm not dealing with an intelligent person. Any much smarter Orthobros got an explanation?
And on a side for someone who ISN'T a Prautistant shitposter, Why did James wait for Peter to enter the tomb first?
>>1014059
But why is it not theologically sound?
>it's an innovation
I'm not caring about that for this argument, but why the Spirit can't proceed from Jesus as He does from the Father. Where is the theological error there beyond "innovation?" How is it just as wrong as saying, oh what's an obviously false claim we can both agree is false for the sake of an example, "All white doves are physical manifestations of the Holy Spirit?"
>>1014086
Why do Protestants have to ruin everything with their retardation?
>>1012594
tbqh
>>1014087
No, we do.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1217
1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."
>>1014176
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
Just in case you think I'm making it up.
>>1013697
>""""""""protestants""""""""
>Christian
pick one
>>1014089
>being a "good person" by giving to charities once a year doesn't get you into heaven
>believing in God but no celebrating the Holy Sacrement and partaking in the flesh of the Lamb at His High Feast means your faith is dead
Pretty reconcilable I'd say.
>>1014134
Peter goes from Simon to Peter; from sand to rock.
Peter is sand at the trial of Jesus, but with the Holy Spirit, he goes to rock at the day of Pentecost.
I'm not saying there isn't a rock theme here. I'm saying Peter is not the foundation for Jesus' church. Jesus is.
>>1014154
> why the Spirit can't proceed from Jesus as He does from the Father
Yeah, but why should he? Where is the theological necessity to do so? And if there is no solid theological argument for either case, why change the established Creed? Burden of proof is always on these who want to change the status quo. You have to show that ecumenical counsels were incompetent and accepted incorrect definition, and this is quite a feat for someone who generally accepts them.
> Where is the theological error there beyond "innovation?"
Innovation is a theological error by itself. By this logic, you can pull new teachings out of your ass all the time as long as they don't contradict the Scripture in some obvious way. Oh, wait, this is basically what Catholics did for the last millennia.
>>1014160
To shake your faith from being placed in your church to being placed on Jesus directly, so that you may be saved.
>>1014163
To me, Early Christianity needs to run parallel to and embrace the Reformation, not be completely subsumed by Rome. There were always Christians who would not bend the knee to Rome, and were not murdered by Rome.
>>1014176
>>1014178
I think you repeat your master's lies.
Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:
We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?
>>1014184
You only posted one.
>>1014188
The devil believes in God, and is not saved. There are no good people.
Care to try again?
>>1014190
You know the only thing stopping the Church from dropping it is the fact that we've been saying it for 1500 years and it isn't going to go away because we stop. We have to stop the right way to make sure it doesn't cause another friggin schism when some Catholics start hating on the Pope for dropping it.
Also Orthodox admit that at least some understanding of the phrase isn't heretical. (Father through the Son is the one that seems to have the most traction) So that we weren't wrong per-se all those years in saying it. If we can't accomplish this concession there really is no point in us dropping it.
Us admitting it wasn't part of the original, inserted to fight a no-longer-prominant heresy, which was its only purpose but when I've had arguments with people who claim Mary isn't the Mother of God but she is the Mother of Jesus (seriously I once saw a guy doing that on here) so it's not like there aren't other retarded herseies still bumping around, and so discontinuing use for ecunuemcism is prudent.
It might be something that finally gets resolved when and if this goes down.
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21561
And I'm serious, I've seen people say Mary isn't the Mother of God but still say she's the Mother of Jesus.
>>1014256
>Mary isn't the Mother of God
God existed for an eternity before Mary was born.
You need to get a grip.
>>1014265
Jesus is the Son of God and has existed for as long as his Father. What's your point?
>>1014276
God is the preeminent one, the most important and praiseworthy being in the universe. God has no "mother." He is the creator of all things. Motherhood, on the other hand, is a biological function (as it is used in the context of Mary in Roman Catholicism), not one dealing with the nature and essence of God as it relates to a human being who is a mother. But, God has no mother. There is nothing, and there is no one before Him, equal to Him, or comparable to Him. We must guard His glory and not give it to another.
My point is that you're in a Virgin Mother Earth cult.
>>1014276
What's the point? The point is the RCC deifies Mary!
God Himself is a supreme being, and the emotional inference of being the "mother of" someone carries with it authority over, maturity beyond, and even superiority. This kind of attitude has led to further errors.
She is called the second Eve, (Mystici Corpois Christ, par. 110)
Expressed devotion to Mary, (CCC 971)
They pray to Mary, (CCC 2679)
"Mary sits at the right hand of Christ," (Pope Pius X, 1835-1914, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14)
Mary is second only to Jesus, (Handbook for Todays Catholic, p. 31)
"so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother," (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914)
Idolatry! Blasphemy! Abomination! That's the point, papist! you're going to hell because you think Jesus' mommy is going to sneak you into heaven!
>>1014256
Find me the phrase "Mother of God" in the bible! I dare you! Tell me how Mary gave birth to the Trinity! I dare you!
>>1014256
> https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21561
Yeah, I have hopes about it too, and I agree, filioque isn't heresy per se. The problem is, it's not the only doctrinal difference. Role of the Pope is the major one, and with Vatican I it became even harder to reconcile with the Orthodox understanding of ecumenical hierarchy.
>>1014302
>Nicolaitan problems.
>Left leg, right leg.
>>1014218
The devil had his chance at the beginning to serve God and shouted Non Serviam. He knew full well what that entailed and still said it. The Angelic situation isn't the Human situation. The only intersection is that a man and demon can pay lip service to the saving power of Jesus.
Second, I'm talking about the millennials who are all "um I just think we can all just be, like, good people and that'll get us to like, heaven and stuff." with that "good person" bit. Also it's the kind of set up like the Rich Man and Lazarus. Success in this life and laud from others for token good deeds like begrudgingly-done charity work every December does not salvation make.
Likewise just professing Jesus as Lord doesn't alone save, but eating of the Lamb's Living Flesh and Blood at his Wedding Feast saves IN CONJUNCTION with it.
>>1014277
>God has no "mother."
Jesus is God. He was born by Mary and called her his mother. It doesn't get any clearer than that.
>>1014285
No one implies Mary being superior to God.
>Mary is second only to Jesus
So what?
>Idolatry! Blasphemy! Abomination!
Stop being so cringy.
>you're going to hell
You're not even in the Church.
>>1014265
See what I mean? Heretics defying the Theotokos, which the Orthodox and Catholic both profess as doctrine.
>>1014293
>Find me the phrase "Mother of God" in the bible!
The phrase was used by the Church Fathers before the Bible was even compiled.
>>1012594
>Anglicanism closer to orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism
You know they have female bishops, right?
>>1014302
Oh I know, but there's so much Filioque autism getting that out of the way might aid with unification.
If the Pope says "drop it," I'm dropping it. But only after spending a day with an Orthodox priest reciting it over and over again so I don't feel so weird with it missing.
It's like how you still have people saying "and also with you" after going to the more accurate "and with your spirit." I'm still going to say the Filioque on occasion while trying to train myself not to.
But hey, baby steps, my brother in Christ, baby steps.
>>1014313
Did you bother looking? "Mother of God" is not in the bible. Why is it in your Nicolaitan catechism?
>>1014314
Bullshit. The devil staged a coup against God and failed prior to the creation of man.
Your theology is bullshit.
>>1014315
Jesus did not begin to exist when Mary was pregnant, Arius.
>>1014315
>You're not even in the Whore of Babylon.
Yeah, no shit.
>>1014323
Both Nicolaitans, the beliefs of which Jesus hates.
Both legs on the same statue Jesus is going to destroy.
>>1014325
Never, not once, not ever.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
>>1014293
She gave birth to Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the Mother of God.
Mary is not the Mother of the Trinity.
By asserting she couldn't give birth to the Second Person without also bearing the whole Trinity, you're making assumptions that Jesus is both Father and Spirit at the same time.
>>1014361
>non serviam
>somehow impossible to follow with a coup that could never work considering God is Infinite
>>1014376
"assume"
John 10
"I and the Father are one."
John 14:7 [ The Father Revealed ] “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
How's it feel being a polytheist?
>>1014387
The devil is not infinite, and ruined Day Two of the creation. Man was made Day Six.
Maybe read the first book of the bible.
>>1014376
>assume
John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
>>1014199
Nope
>>1014394
When did I say the Devil is infinite?
>>1014391
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is not the Father.
Mary bore the Son.
She thusly bore God.
But she did not bear the Father or the Spirit.
>>1014212
That doesn't contradict anything in the Catechism
Just because they've been baptized properly doesn't mean they're saved
>>1014413
What exactly is your point?
This is the flaw of sola scriptura. Bible passages sans exegesis are pointless.
>>1012642
You're now aware that your interpretation is based on grammatical error. Jesus couldn't possibly have been referring to himself given the structure of the sentence. It'd be grammatically incorrect if he was
>>1013647
Idiot
Christ spoke in Aramaic and Petra is a feminine term in the Greek (not fitting a male name). When Christ spoke it would have been "Keffa" both times
>>1014364
I didn't imply that he did. She was still pregnant with him and gave birth to him.
>>1014369
>plain blasphemy
>>1014374
>Never, not once, not ever.
Yes, many times.
Seriously, how delusional do Protestants have to be to blindly read the Bible but ignore the very people behind it. That's Muslim-tier behaviour.
>>1013638
>no basis in scripture
Revelation 22:1
Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb,
John 20:21-22
21So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
>or tradition
Tertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
>>1014503
It's self-evident.
>>1014540
Enjoy your polytheism!
>>1014541
That is your catechism. It contradicts the bible. And it contradicts the Anon who said the church recognizes other baptisms.
>>1014552
That I do not have to assume there is One God.
I can know there is One God.
>>1014664
No to both of those
>>1014568
Show me the Aramaic that was written down in the scriptures.
Oh, wait, you can't.
Because Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and it was translated to Greek.
So why are you lying about the Aramaic again, when you don't have any evidence for it?
Oh, yes, because your church tells you to lie, because it does nothing but lie.
>>1014619
The phrase "Mother of God" confirmed as not being in the bible.
Catholics and Orthodox confirmed as polytheists.
>>1014656
t. Mohamed al-Abdul
>>1014676
>No to the truth. Yes to my church's lies.
>>1014677
It doesn't matter what language they wrote it in
Aramaic was the language spoken in Palestine then. Hebrew was only ever spoken in the synagogue, so Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic
>>1014692
Exactly! Catholics and Orthodox convinced the muslims that they worship three gods!
>>1014683
I said that the Church Fathers used the phrase before the Bible was compiled. And the Bible comes from the Church Fathers and the Holy Tradition that you deny.
>muh polytheists
Is the Trinity polytheistic?
Seriously, what is so difficult for you to grasp here? Mary gave birth to Jesus. Jesus is God. Mother of God. My two year old counsin could understand that.
>>1014696
They spoke Greek, actually, for the most part, as they were fairly well Hellenized at this point in time.
But the Aramaic lie; you keep on lying like that. You may fool someone dumber than you one day!
So, yet another lie from the Whore of Babylon, or the other leg, the lesser of the two.
>>1014706
>They spoke Greek, actually,
No they didn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus
>>1014704
I don't care what proto-catholics and gnostics say.
They can lie all day long, and it won't bother me one bit.
>Herp derp I can dissect the Trinity so Jesus only was born to Mary, not the Father or the Spirit, but I believe in One God!
You went full retard, polytheist.
>>1014712
Bible > wiki
The sooner you learn that, the better.
It's so amazing to me that you can take the written word of eyewitnesses, and then take it into a different language, and make it say something completely different, and have no problem with that.
>>1014723
Got it you aren't interested in a genuine discussion
You just want to kick and scream that mommy catholicism took away your ice cream
>>1014717
Right, the apostles who were taught by Christ directly know nothing, the ones taught by the apostles also know nothing. It's some angsty 16h century Jew-hating German who figured it all out by using a Book written by the same people that I mentioned previously. Protestant logic at its finest.
>Herp derp I can dissect the Trinity so Jesus only was born to Mary, not the Father or the Spirit, but I believe in One God!
Jesus is the begotten one, yes, that's a distinction. Why call it a Trinity otherwise?
An Orthodox church is just a church. It isn't an institution and it isn't a ponzi scheme. Also we don't worship characters or objects.
That's pretty much it.
>>1014723
>Bible > Wiki
Yes, but as Jesus existed in a historically verifiable time in which historians knowledgeable about Roman occupation of Palastine will attest to existing and said time had the Jews in Roman occupied Palistine speaking Aramaic, one can reasonably deduce Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic.
If they spoke Greek, then it's like a white guy in Dallas speaking Spanish.
>>1014723
>Jesus spoke Greek
And was literate, I presume? I guess he read Homer and Aristophanes in his free time, like any carpenter in 30 AC Palestine,
>>1012639
You have no right to call us heretics since the Cucktholic Church consider us official, yet the Orthodox consider the Catholics heretics, shut the fuck up.
>>1014712
Jesus Christ was a nazarene, and his mother actually had origins from Greek Thrace since her family had moved there from Alexander's conquests and settled in Judea, but settling before in Lydia for 2 years.
It's quite surprising how many people haven't read Eusebius of Cesarea.
>>1015512
Heretic
>>1012604
Every country has it's own Patriarch, they are considered equal (for the most part). So Bulgaria, Serbia (with Macedonia and Montenegro), Romania, Russia (with former soviet countries + Japan and China) etc.
The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the formal head, but they are all somewhat equal.
As for political power... Well Russia, what did you expect. The Russian church draws it's power from the Russian government (not exactly Byzantine Symphonia theory, but that's the legacy)
>>1014089
quote the full passage, pleb:
>8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
>9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
>10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them
It is not by our OWN works, but the works we do by the grace of Christ. Faith without works is not faith.
>>1012663
> Some can say the Russian Patriarch is kinda the leading figure, since Russian church by far the largest and richest one, but he has no authority outside Russian Church neither.
Yeah. This.
Russian Patriarch does not have any de jure influence, but he can push his weight around to make things go his way. At the very least in the post-Soviet states.
you know it's funny because before the schism greek churches recognized the primacy of Rome, of course it was a primus inter pares thing, but still.
