this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
48 points (83.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43962 readers
1587 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are only two major churches which have a valid historical claim to be a direct succession of the original Church, the other one being the Roman Catholic Church. On the major points of contention - the filioque and papal supremacy - I found the history of the early Church to be solidly supporting of the Orthodox view.
Not to be a dick, but that's because they did their absolute best to kill heretics and dismantle their belief systems by destroying their literature.
The early church had a lot of ideas about Jesus and his purpose, but the gnostics and other groups were all suppressed by the Orthodox Church and we only know about their beliefs through the lens of their interlocutors.
History is written by the victors, if the Orthodox Church is responsible for early church history they're going to give you their version of it.
Rome killed heretics, because Christianity was the state religion, and turned to the Church to speak to what is and is not Christianity. And the Church has condemned things like gnosticism as non-Christian from the very beginning. Don't confuse Rome having an official prescribed acceptable set of religions with some nefarious scheme by the Church. It is the role of the bishops to speak to what the authentic Christian faith is; what the state - in this case, the Roman empire - does with that information, with regard to non-Christian faiths, is it's own business. The Church is under no onus to accept false theology as Christian simply for fear that the Empire will persecute those people if they don't. In fact, she would've been wrong to do so, and unfaithful to her commission by Christ had they compromised the Christian religion that way.