[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / baphomet / dempart / islam / komica / lewd / roze / sgg ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 797e9cba7e8ecb1⋯.jpg (69.66 KB, 312x450, 52:75, St Constantine.jpg)

0f32df  No.792108

Why should I not view St. Eusebius' "Church History" as an authentic and reliable source of the Apostolic Churches? I see atheists and (to be fair, usually really offshoot heretical like Continuing Church of God) evangelicals crapping on it all the time, but I want to know if there is any reason for an Apostolic not to use it from fellow Apostolics. I've read it and found it to be the most remarkable piece of literature by a Church Father I've read in a long time. Like the fact his Church History contains the oldest quotations to Josephus talking about Our Lord Jesus Christ in a positive manner, while the ones that DON'T depict Jesus Christ as the Messiah are from the 11th century. Or the fact his Church History points to the fact Philo may have very well been a Christian by the end of his life. Or the history of the Apostles after the death of Christ. It has really strengthened my faith.

And please, do not give me the 2 standard "arguments" I always see in regards to St. Eusebius' Church History being unreliable:

>He was a Caesaropapist who supported that evil Nazi (Saint) Constantine (the Great)!

>He said in his writings (taken completely out of context) that lying is okay so that must mean his Church History is full of lies and interpolations!

01f28b  No.792152

Eusebius is not canonized by anyone, you know. The icon you have posted is of St. Constantine.


0f32df  No.792159

>>792152

He is canonized by the Coptic Church.

Also I am aware it is St. Constantine, I named the file. I used it because St. Eusebius is most closely associated with St. Constantine because the main detractors of his Church History say he worshipped the ground Constantine walked on and Constantine was super evil but Eusebius covered all of that up. It's a lie of course, but yes, using St. Constantine's icon was intentional.


0ec708  No.792162

Eusebius is good to quote as an observer of history or tradition, it's really up to the serious historian to take him seriously or not. If you do decide to call him a liar, you're throwing out one of the major witnesses to the 4th century.


01f28b  No.792166

>>792159

What the hell? I didn't even realize that the filename was to the right. I always thought the filename was the string of numbers and letters to the left (797e9cba7e8ecb14594c9b07f72aa7f8f88b7c0dbb5430fe5b7a2db1b34d5aa8.jpg in this case). Now I feel really stupid.

The Coptic Orthodox Church is not Christian so I don't really care who they "canonize".

Eusebius can be read (it's not like he died out of communion with the Church, as far as I know) but, because he is not a saint, it's not like the Holy Spirit testifies to the orthodoxy of his writings either.

He should certainly be read by anyone who is concerned with early Church writings, but I will not die on a hill to defend him either.


0f32df  No.792169

File: e8cd6196f015026⋯.jpg (29.24 KB, 336x448, 3:4, Coptic Christ.jpg)

>>792166

>The Coptic Church is not Christian

We most certainly are. Where did you get the idea we aren't? Assuming you are Eastern Orthodox, we came to an agreement decades ago on the fact we share the same Christology. Where I live, Eastern Orthodox and we, the Copts, have intercommunion with each other regularly with the Orthodox Church in America, the Greek Orthodox, and the Antiochian Orthodox.

https://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/orthodox-life/two-families-of-orthodox/

And assuming you're Catholic, same thing:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

>because he is not a saint

but that's the entire point I'm making, he IS a Saint. Therefore I want to hear Apostolic arguments for why he should not be read, because otherwise I will assume the only people against Church History are judaized Protestants, anti-Constantinians, or non-Christians.


0ec708  No.792173

>>792169

In your communion, he is a Saint, for others he is a voice of history and tradition, and is worth reading alone on those grounds (especially because his writings are used to speculate on speak on many things).


e446e3  No.792270

>>792169

Anyone who's not a Roman Catholic isn't considered Christian here newfriend.


01f28b  No.792273

>>792270

I'm not a Roman Catholic.

However, to be considered a Christian here you must agree to the doctrines of the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Chalcedon. The Oriental Orthodox church, as a religious confession of faith, rejects Chalcedon.


e446e3  No.792282

>>792273

I'm sure our friend here can enlighten you soon on the actual happenings but the OO generally see Chalcedon as poorly understood political dispute rather than anything else with the theological part coming down to being only stuck up on outdated semantics.

People generally don't care and since the EOC has been approaching for a few decades now many accept and promote Chalcedon.

That's what I know at least, I'm sure our resident Coptic can correct me and explain things better but personally I think if anyone sees something like the monks at St.Anthony's monastery and calls them non-Christian while insisting he himself is Christian, is just ridiculous to me.


5bf206  No.792352

File: 98abb1b1bffe1f0⋯.jpg (440.84 KB, 599x1181, 599:1181, Screenshot_20190218-103935….jpg)

>>792273

>>792282

Yes, it is exactly as he said. I can say we have the same Christology as you do. Chalcedon's Schism is seen as a tragic misunderstanding. Look at the links I posted from the Coptic Diocese of Los Angeles for example. Even the anathemas on our Church Fathers no longer exist.

Where I live, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox intercommune with each other regularly. When I am abroad I have full permission from my bishop to take communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church, and they, when asked, will allow me with no issue. As the EO priest I frequent most says of Copts, "we have the same faith," and my own priest echoes these sentiments.

I will say I believe in what Chalcedon teaches, because its Christology is no different than our Miaphysitism.

My own priest, who knew several bishops that attended the common faith declarations in the 90s, told me we came to an agreement on everything with both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox admitting everything tge other taught as sound theologically, and we were set to reunify, but a few hardliners on Mount Athos saw reunification as unjustifiable because they still did not believe we had the same Christology despite the signed declarations that we do, and since then talks have sadly died. But both my priests look on those reunification meetings fondly.

Back on topic however, why do Protestants hate Church History so much? It contains so many helpful historical proofs for Christ and the Apostolic Church!


3109d4  No.792358

>>792352

>Back on topic however, why do Protestants hate Church History so much? It contains so many helpful historical proofs for Christ and the Apostolic Church!

Because anything after about 100AD shreds their legitimacy. They do selectively accept some however. Which is why they conveniently accept Roman historians talking about Jesus but reject anything later as "corrupted", usually giving some arbitrary cutoff date.


6bbca4  No.792889

>>792358

Just about everything Ante-Nicene shreds Christo-paganism. Theodosius I single-handedly destroyed the physical Church on Earth.


cdccb2  No.793646

>>792270

Speak for yourself, caesaropapist. Only Orthodox people are the real Christians and you're just a bunch of schismatics


01f28b  No.793652

>>793646

Curb your autism. He was mocking how the moderation, and so the whole board, tends to be heavily biased in favor of Catholicism. He said this because he thought I was one of those idiot Deus Vult LARPers who plague this place. (it turns out I'm only an idiot OrthoLARPer)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / baphomet / dempart / islam / komica / lewd / roze / sgg ]