Russia now claims roots in Byzantium

Posted by Библията Тв in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

 

Ilya Okhotnikov [11/30/2015 4:26 PM]
Oh! Yessss! Bezyntine is the background of Russian (political in particular) mindset. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879366511000303

John Kissinger [11/30/2015 7:57 PM]
Elaborating on this, it was proposed that Tikhon and the people behind him created the movie to mobilize the masses to defend the Russian state, but they actually showed that Russia, like the Byzantine Empire, is doomed. Throughout the centuries, Russia departed more and more from its healthy Orthodox archetype. The real Russia existed only before the thirteenth century (Yuri, 2008). During the Kievan period and shortly after, Russia was a free and purely Slavic Orthodox society.

Jon Ruthven [12/12/2015 2:42 PM]
Moscow always aspired to be the “Third Rome” just as Charlemagne imagined his “Holy Roman Empire”–a little grandiose, rather like Idi Amin of Uganda styling himself as “The Conqueror of the British Empire.”

44 Comments

  • Reply October 14, 2017

    Varnel Watson

    RUSSIA NOW CLAIMS ROOTS IN BYZANTIUM ???

    Oh! Yessss! exclaimed Ilya Okhotnikov

    Oh NO I say unto thee…

    Amalgamation of the prophetic with the political in the Byzantium was called a symbiosis of church and state. In this country we have long recognized a separation of church and state. Though, some calvinistic and Kingdom Now theology have made the way to merge both for what in fact is a ludicrous and utopian church state with a physical Christ present on earth.

    Bottom line for US and Russia today: Trump is not the prophet of God or to the church. If he is a prophet of someone else we may have arrived at the point of history which Ricky Grimsley has described as being setup for the Antichrist

    xRegent Jon Ruthven with a spot on comment <>

  • Reply March 5, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    Here we go Randal W Deese At the time of the Schism of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople, the membership of the Eastern Orthodox Church was spread throughout the Middle East, the Balkans, and Russia, with its centre in Constantinople, which was also called “New Rome.” It was only then that anyone started calling the eastern church Orthodox. It did not exist before that. It did not have a separate patriarch At least according to Britanica

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      The Orthodox Church was the unified Church that ended up calling themselves Orthodox after Roman Patriarch split off… Sorry

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      All and while the earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term “Catholic Church” is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about AD 107 to Christians in Smyrna. May wanna read your history again

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      The five Patriarchs, who were the same offices created in the fourth century, merely carried on the old faith. Rome made their own Doctrines

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      The Four Marks of the Church is a term describing four distinctive adjectives — “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” — of traditional Christian ecclesiology as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed completed at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381: “[I believe] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic – it was never called Orthodox before 1054

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Troy Day Catholic includes all of the Patriarchs jurisdictions…lol

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      The first seven Ecumenical Councils were held between the years of 325 and 787 with the aim of formalizing accepted doctrines. No one was called Orthodox ther either Eastern Orthodoxy developed in the Greek-speaking Eastern part of the Roman Empire, continuing later in the Byzantine Empire though this was never in official use and gradually abandoned by the non–Greek-speaking Eastern Orthodoxy from the 10th century A.D

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Troy Day you missed the point…

      The Orthodox Church IS the Church of the Unified whole.. Your getting wrapped around the axle

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      No I did not miss your point because you have not made any point yet. I am on point when I stated that the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Church shared communion with the contemporary Roman Catholic Church until the East–West Schism in AD 1054, triggered by disputes over doctrine, especially the authority of the Pope. Meaning they had no problem being under the Pope of Rome until then neither had a problem being under any of the bishops of Rome before that ie. until the schism there was no Orthodox church

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      You are getting hung up on the name.. It is the unified church doctrine that is consistent

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Orthodoxy is the unity of doctrinal positions that have remained consistent. The term Orthodoxy is relatively new, but expresses the consistent truth

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Troy Day There were five separate Patriarchs…one was in Rome. The others did not submit to the Roman Patriarch…lol

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      The Orthodox Church was founded on the Day of Holy Pentecost in Jerusalem in 33 AD, fifty days after the Holy Resurrection of Jesus Christ our true God. It has preserved the original teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles form that time until the present. The first major Bishops of the Church (known as Patriarchs) have remained Orthodox up to the present. They are the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Later onwards other Patriarchs also began to develop within the Orthodox Church: Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albanian.

      Was the Roman Catholic Church a part of the Orthodox Church?
      Yes, the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the Orthodox Church, believing and teaching the same doctrines and Sacred Tradition, until 1054. It was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Orthodox Church. In that year the Patriarch of Rome, or the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope of Rome broke away from the original Church by making unacceptable claims of authority over the entire Christian Church. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church has added new teachings, which the ancient Christian Church above rejects. One of these is the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Not only this doctrine but also other matters of the faith have developed within the Roman Catholic Church which has since has separated both these Churches.

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      CrossTheology

      Troy Day, your were getting hung up on the name. Randal W Deese, the “orthodox” church also doesn’t totally follow the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Dave Ketter

      The split between Western and Eastern Chalcedonian patriarchs is just that. Patriarch of Rome, who was given first place of honor (but not authority—that is Christ) refused to defer to the consensus of the other four Patriarchs who were in the East (its worth pointing out that the non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria was already separated from the rest of them). It was a difference that could have been resolved quickly and easily but over time, the Western Church elaborated and evolved a number of things while the Eastern Church mainly translated what they had already been practicing.

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      CrossTheology

      I disagree..

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      CrossTheology

      So do many orthodox Christians, dogmatically but contrary to history.

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      CrossTheology

      I don’t agree with your assessment of history

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Dave Ketter

      I’m gonna do the Anglican thing and suggest the entire pentarchy erred. That’s in the Articles of Religion.

      But every patriarchate and judicatory has erred. Every. Single. One.

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Dave Ketter you Anglicans…lol

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Well, at least you guys have held to some truths… *smile*

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Dave Ketter

      And require nothing be taught as necessary for salvation except that which is clearly proven by the Scriptures. Hoped my fellow Pentecostals would hold to that conviction a little more soundly…..this group does make me wonder a bit though!

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Dave Ketter So are you a Pentecostal Anglican?

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Dave Ketter

      I am. Neither Confirmation nor Ordination shook me of that Pentecostal background. I find the Great Tradition presents a beautiful fireplace for Pentecostal fire. 🙂

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      CrossTheology

      Randal W Deese, some people say EO was right and SO was wrong. SO seems more in accordance with the Bible. It was one group over against the other. No one has been able to prove one was right and it seems like neither group lost the Holy Spirit, otherwise they would have noticed. Furthermore, there is a gap in history from 110-180 in Alexandria. Around 180 we have the second leader of the Alexandrian Catechism school (Pantaenus) and we see weird doctrines spreading from there. It’s called the Hellenization or Platonization of Christianity. There is your “orthodoxy”. It’s unprovable and often not in accordance with the Bible. These days I’m more into Pentecostal house churches; living Acts 2 and not all the additional, unnecessary, unity-breaking dogmas people came up with (James 4 shows where the root of the bad fruit lays).

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      CrossTheology Well, from reading the Church Fathers, I see an overall consistency of Truth.. I think not being connected to the Historical Church has it’s own set of doctrinal peculiarities

  • Reply March 5, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    Dave Ketter I am gonna do the Protestant thing and suggest Catholic is the ac; orthodoxy is its little horn and anglicans sold out for Henry’s marriages 🙂 Just going out on the limb here

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Dave Ketter

      You’d be wrong. I suggest reading Cranmer’s writings. Or Latimer and Ridley’s sermons. Or John Jewel’s “Apology for the Church of England.”

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      Why would you assume I have not read them or Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia” in its original Latin ?

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Dave Ketter

      To be frank, I’ve yet to meet a non-Anglican (sans a church history PhD) who has. Heck, few enough Anglicans have. I’m playing the odds here.

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      🙂

  • Reply March 5, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    Randal W Deese Just looking over history one last time
    1. no orthodox defined till the Schism
    2. no separate pope/bishop rule until the 5th c.
    3. no church called orthodox until much later
    4. first church ie the site of the Last Supper was not Orthodox either
    5. Cunctos populos mentioned no orthodox church

    This would be sufficient to accept Orthodox came to be a thing on or after 1054 AD

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      We are the only ones who have held consistent Orthodox Doctrines…lol… Hehe. Hence, the term Orthodox was embraced… But nothing else changed… And that is all that matters…

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      You held orthodox doctrines but lost the baptism with the Holy Ghost oh yes 🙂

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Troy Day Actually, Chrismation is the receiving of the Gift of the Holy Spirit

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      Thats not what I said now is it ?

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Troy Day I didn’t lose the BHS… Lol

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      idk about you but the Orthodox sure did around 3 AD – now trying to remember what was the verse mentioned so we can look it up in the Greek

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Randal W Deese

      Troy Day huh?

    • Reply March 5, 2018

      Varnel Watson

      mhm Some post-modern Pentecostal theologians have suggested tongues speaking is an act of chrismata ascetics

  • Reply October 28, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    Moscow always aspired to be the “Third Rome” just as Charlemagne imagined his “Holy Roman Empire”–a little grandiose, rather like Idi Amin of Uganda styling himself as “The Conqueror of the British Empire.”

  • Reply October 28, 2018

    Ron Culbreth

    The people of Russia are so precious. I was there in 97, I remember after preaching how readily they accepted the word.

  • Reply October 28, 2018

    Varnel Watson

    quite a bit could have changed since then – 20yrs

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Russia now claims roots in Byzantium

Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

Oh dear Lord NO – Russia now from Byzantium? Ilya Okhotnikov

John Kissinger [11/30/2015 7:18 AM]
William DeArteaga glad to have written the article Empire State Churc http://cupandcross.com/empire-state-church/

Ilya Okhotnikov [11/30/2015 4:26 PM]
Oh! Yessss!

Ilya Okhotnikov [11/30/2015 4:27 PM]
Bezyntine is the background of Russian (political in particular) mindset. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879366511000303

John Kissinger [11/30/2015 7:57 PM]
Elaborating on this, a certain “Yuri K.” proposed that Tikhon and the people behind him created the movie to mobilize the masses to defend the Russian state, but they actually showed that Russia, like the Byzantine Empire, is doomed. Throughout the centuries, Russia departed more and more from its healthy Orthodox archetype. The real Russia existed only before the thirteenth century (Yuri, 2008). During the Kievan period and shortly after, Russia was a free and purely Slavic Orthodox society.

Jon Ruthven [12/12/2015 2:42 PM]
Moscow always aspired to be the “Third Rome” just as Charlemagne imagined his “Holy Roman Empire”–a little grandiose, rather like Idi Amin of Uganda styling himself as “The Conqueror of the British Empire.”

Be first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.