• @LopensLeftArm
    link
    17 months ago

    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.

    • R0cket_M00se
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      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.

      • @LopensLeftArm
        link
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.