I have only skimmed one chapter of the book, but I am sure this source could prove or disprove the asssertion that the Assyrians were not Nestorians prior to 600, if one looked at it. I just don't have the time to be the one to do it, so I thought of just offering the resource for others' benefit.
Anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
Joasia wrote:The other denominations have either, added or removed from the CREED.
The Roman Catholics (and I think Protestants may generally go along with this) have added to the Creed. I don't think anyone else has added or removed anything. That still leaves you with Nestorians and Orientals to deal with.
When one of the bishops under the See of Rome, I believe, in Spain, started saying it that way, during the point in the liturgy of professing the faith, it caused concern in the Eastern Sees and a long, unsuccessful attempt to have the statement cease. Hence, therefore and a few years later...voila...the Great Schism. So obviously, the change in the wording, alone, of the faith caused a division. This already looks like the consequence of a bad choice.
It took a lot longer than "a few years".
If I may go on a related tangent for a minute...
You are right when you say, with regard to the Filioque, the change in the wording of the faith caused a division. But that change reflected an alteration of the substance of the faith. If, for example, the Spanish Church had to contend with Nestorians (after the 600's 
) who denied that Mary was the Mother of God, and the Spanish Church unilaterally added the term Theotokos to the Creed, so that it read "and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, and became man", would that still be disagreeable?
I guarentee you that if you examine the other religions, you mentioned, under the scrutiny of the light of truth, you will see that they either, added or extracted from the CREED, which is the confession of the faith of the way Christianity should be.
That doesn't make any sense. If you talk to these different religious groups you mentioned, they will disagree with certain lines or add their own. So there is no agreement.
Prove it. I am pretty familiar with the "separated Eastern Churches", and I have not heard that they added to or subtracted from the Creed.
Maybe, I'm misunderstanding you, but the Creed states "And In One, Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church." The indication of the Apostles means that these Holy Fathers were carrying on the teachings from the Apostles, that Christ, Himself, taught them.
Right.
What do you mean by the "totality" of the Apostic faith. The CREED was written down on paper or whatever, to RECORD the Apostles' teachings that these men and those before them, knew in faith and passed down by oral tradition.
The Creed confesses one baptism for the remission of sins, but doesn't say a word about the other six sacraments. The Creed refers to the Virgin Mary as the Virgin Mary, without reference to her ever-virginity or her being the Mother of God. These are just two examples of things which are a part of the faith of the Apostles, and yet are not contained in the Creed. If a Baptist confesses the Creed and still holds to his heretical teachings, thinking that the Creed contains all the necessary teachings of the Church, the Orthodox would still say he was in error, because the Creed is of great importance, but obviously doesn't contain within itself everything that constitutes the faith of the Apostles, the Orthodox faith.
People have made religion a forum of intellectual debate. It's not that at all, but I guess your PROFESSOR wouldn't understand that too. Coming to the faith in Christ with the true teachings is like...how can I say...an assuredness that NOW I am where I should be. Even if I am not studied in Theology, I can make definite statements about my faith, because I'm LIVING it, I'm not STUDYING it.
I find the implication that those of us who discuss issues of faith in order to come to a better understanding of the Truth are simply "studying" it and not "living" it to be silly. Certainly there are people like this, but a blanket dismissal is uncalled for when you don't know who or what you are talking about. Many are able to struggle with living the faith in conjunction with learning about it.
Furthermore, your boasting that you can make definitive statements about your faith because you're living it is particularly revolting. Are you really living the faith? Are you at such a high state of spiritual advancement that you can say that? I'm trying to live the faith, but I don't try enough because I often prefer my sins, and so I fall, and when I do try, I still fall. I wouldn't say I'm living the faith, I'm just trying to stay above water. Are you already on the shore? You can make definitive statements about the faith when you know the faith teaches X. Going to church and keeping a rule of prayer doesn't give you the right to dogmatise everything you say about the faith as definitive. Heck, even Nestorius went to church and prayed.
Nestorians do, and yet they disagree with you on other points.
Well, if it's outside of the CREED then the disagreements can go on forever. But, that is not the measuring stick to follow, because it's just a point of opinion. It can go on forever. There has to be one common denominating factor that is stable for measurement, otherwise, there is no consistency in measurement. It all becomes hypothetical...and that can drive a person crazy. We need final answers. Scientic and moral.
So what is outside the Creed is not the measuring stick to follow because it's just a point of opinion? Six of the seven sacraments are a point of opinion? "Theotokos" is a point of opinion? The Chalcedonian Christological definition is a point of opinion?
The Creed is a reliable confession, but the measuring stick cannot simply be the Creed because there is much that is not in the Creed. The measuring stick is the Orthodox faith. The Creed is an expression of that, but not the only one.
If your professor is more interested in philosphy, then you are in a tornado of ideas. And we all know what damage tornados can do. But, the truth is like the sun, it is ALWAYS there even if it is obscured by the clouds. WE KNOW IT IS THERE. But, unfortunately, there are people who focus just as far as the clouds and that's all they see.
I don't know what you're talking about, I never mentioned anything about philosophy.
By whose opinion? Your comment is mis-leading. Back it up. I know you gave names of saints, outside of Orthodoxy, but where did you get those names from?
You're kidding me, right? Where did I pull up Saint Isaac of Nineveh? Or Saint David of Garej?
Check your ecclesiastical calendar.
Maybe you are not clear about what Orthodoxy means. It's not established by a certain group of people. It means: "the straight path". It was used before the Great Schism.
You didn't get my point. I know what "Orthodoxy" means. You said: "we should be so insistant of Orthodoxy as the True faith". Whose version of "Orthodoxy"? Read on...
But, after the See of Rome caused the Great Schism, the Eastern Church had to distinguish themselves according to their confession.
This is only one interpretation of events. RC's regard themselves as "orthodox", and they believe you left them. Nestorians regard themselves as Orthodox, and Nestorius as "the bloodless martyr, persecuted for the truth of the Orthodox faith" (or something like that). My Church regards itself as Orthodox. EO believe that all of these are wrong, and they are right. Why should I believe one of these over all the rest?
Don't look at the hierarchs in position now. They have their own agenda.
You made my point for me. EVEN IF I accepted the EO position completely, where would I go? If I asked people on this board, I might get different responses. For example, some would say there is nothing to argue against joining the OCA, since it is Orthodox. Others might say the OCA is schismatic. Still others would say it leans toward heresy or is heretical. Among the various Old Calendar groups, there are disagreements over who is schismatic and who is not. It goes on and on. There are a few "Orthodoxies" within Eastern Orthodoxy itself, let alone considering other "denominations".
The True Faith is Christian, which is upheld with the CREED. It is our guiding light through spiritual life.
Since Nestorians, Monophysites, many Eastern Catholics, and some Protestants confess the Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils without alteration, I think you are an ecumenist.
I don't get when people make a false dichotomy between "studying" the faith and "living" the faith. I was under the impression that we were all supposed to be doing both.
Anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
Mor Ephrem,
That still leaves you with Nestorians and Orientals to deal with.
If, for example, the Spanish Church had to contend with Nestorians (after the 600's ) who denied that Mary was the Mother of God, and the Spanish Church unilaterally added the term Theotokos to the Creed, so that it read "and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, and became man", would that still be disagreeable?
I'm confused with your comment.
Can you please rephrase it and remember that you are talking to someone who has no idea what the Nestorians believe.
The Nestorians don't believe in the Mary being the mother of God? Were Nestorians in Spain, in the 600's? The Church added the word, Theotokos? What parts are historical and what parts are you trying to make a comment. I will answer your questions if I knew what you were trying to say.
"separated Eastern Churches"
We have to get on the same page...who are the these seperate Eastern Churches you are thinking of? I'm talking about ALL religions outside of Orthodoxy. You mean Eastern as Muslims or Buddhists. What do you mean? AND I WILL PROVE IT.
The Creed confesses one baptism for the remission of sins, but doesn't say a word about the other six sacraments. The Creed refers to the Virgin Mary as the Virgin Mary, without reference to her ever-virginity or her being the Mother of God. These are just two examples of things which are a part of the faith of the Apostles, and yet are not contained in the Creed. If a Baptist confesses the Creed and still holds to his heretical teachings, thinking that the Creed contains all the necessary teachings of the Church, the Orthodox would still say he was in error, because the Creed is of great importance, but obviously doesn't contain within itself everything that constitutes the faith of the Apostles, the Orthodox faith.
I see what you mean. There is more to learn about AFTER the Creed. But, if there are religions that can't accept ALL the points of the Creed FIRST, then they will not believe in the rest, right? So the Creed is the doorway, into the House of the Lord.
I find the implication that those of us who discuss issues of faith in order to come to a better understanding of the Truth are simply "studying" it and not "living" it to be silly. Certainly there are people like this, but a blanket dismissal is uncalled for when you don't know who or what you are talking about. Many are able to struggle with living the faith in conjunction with learning about it.
I stand corrected. Please accept my apology.
Furthermore, your boasting that you can make definitive statements about your faith because you're living it is particularly revolting. Are you really living the faith? Are you at such a high state of spiritual advancement that you can say that? I'm trying to live the faith, but I don't try enough because I often prefer my sins, and so I fall, and when I do try, I still fall. I wouldn't say I'm living the faith, I'm just trying to stay above water. Are you already on the shore? You can make definitive statements about the faith when you know the faith teaches X. Going to church and keeping a rule of prayer doesn't give you the right to dogmatise everything you say about the faith as definitive. Heck, even Nestorius went to church and prayed.
You seem to be making the same kind of comments. You seem pretty definite about your views....
What I say about the faith is what I read from the saints. Some examples I've given, in other threads, didn't have the right date or name, but the faith about the Creed, is something I have focused on, especially against the papist church. But, about Nestorians, I need more info. Although, I don't have to tell you what is wrong with their theology, right? You already know it. You see, I have a blue print in mind about Orthodoxy, it's the reason I converted. I read many explanations on spiritual matters. But, for some reason Nestorians, eluded my scope of reading.
So what is outside the Creed is not the measuring stick to follow because it's just a point of opinion? Six of the seven sacraments are a point of opinion? "Theotokos" is a point of opinion? The Chalcedonian Christological definition is a point of opinion?
Am I talking to a tornado? The basis of the faith with the Creed is the essential measuring stick. If the other religions can't agree on ONE of those points, then the Christian tradition thereafter, is pointless to discuss. Show me a religion that follows all the points of the Creed, TO THE LETTER. Then we can discuss the rest, IF there is a religion still standing.
Why am I even explaining this to someone who is suppose to be Orthodox? I shouldn't be arguing about other religions not following the Creed to another Orthodox!
If your professor is more interested in philosphy, then you are in a tornado of ideas. And we all know what damage tornados can do. But, the truth is like the sun, it is ALWAYS there even if it is obscured by the clouds. WE KNOW IT IS THERE. But, unfortunately, there are people who focus just as far as the clouds and that's all they see.
I don't know what you're talking about, I never mentioned anything about philosophy.
It sounds like your agruements are based on a free philosophical discussion. My logic is, that I shouldn't even be arguing with another Orthodox about the Creed, it doesn't make sense. We should be agreeing with each other.
This is only one interpretation of events. RC's regard themselves as "orthodox", and they believe you left them. Nestorians regard themselves as Orthodox, and Nestorius as "the bloodless martyr, persecuted for the truth of the Orthodox faith" (or something like that). My Church regards itself as Orthodox. EO believe that all of these are wrong, and they are right.
First of all, an Orthodox should be able to disregard ANYTHING the RC say. Don't get me started with them. How in the world, can they consider themselves "Orthodox"?? Paalleesse. That is ridiculous! You're with the OCA? They're ecumenists. There is an OCA church here, who sends people to my priest, in ROCOR when they ask spiritual questions, because they couldn't care to talk about it. It's like the OCA priest is in a profession, like a job and he doesn't even know the basics.
I don't know what the EO is. Many abbreviations, here, are unfamiliar to me.
Why should I believe one of these over all the rest?
Why indeed. I'm glad, I'm not confused like you. I'd go crazy. Just try to believe in the Apostles, the Creed, the saints and the Holy Mysteries. Then you will be fine. I hope you believe in the Holy Fire. So many sad people don't believe in the Holy Fire.
You made my point for me. EVEN IF I accepted the EO position completely, where would I go? If I asked people on this board, I might get different responses. For example, some would say there is nothing to argue against joining the OCA, since it is Orthodox. Others might say the OCA is schismatic. Still others would say it leans toward heresy or is heretical. Among the various Old Calendar groups, there are disagreements over who is schismatic and who is not. It goes on and on. There are a few "Orthodoxies" within Eastern Orthodoxy itself, let alone considering other "denominations".
That's why I mentioned reading the saints. Because, after absorbing your mind in their writings, you will be able to look at this dilemma and know where you should be...because God will be talking to you. Get it?
Follow the message in your heart.
Since Nestorians, Monophysites, many Eastern Catholics, and some Protestants confess the Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils without alteration, I think you are an ecumenist
HaHa. Cute humour.. the Monophysites Protestants and Eastern catholics follow the Creed...hehehehe. I have a sense of humour too. But, we still need to discuss what the Nestorians believe.
Paaallleeessse, don't start me up about the catholics, I will pulvarize you.
With that, I say God bless and looking forward to the next round.
Joanna
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)
Anastasi,
From what I've learnt, when you STUDY the faith it is an exercise of intellect and philosophy, but when you LIVE the faith, it is a test of how much faith you have in God to get you through. Only when you are tested, will you be proven. You can study to your heart's content, but when you are faced with the real deal....then what will you do?
God bless,
Joanna
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)
Joasia wrote:My logic is, that I shouldn't even be arguing with another Orthodox about the Creed, it doesn't make sense. We should be agreeing with each other.
"agreeing with each other" You're killin' me here! Josia, you really must read some HISTORY of the Orthodox Church.
----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."
