Redpill me on the greek orthodox church. Is it the purest form of chritianism that have survived to our days...

Redpill me on the greek orthodox church. Is it the purest form of chritianism that have survived to our days? also what's the difference between this and other orthodox churches?

No. Non-trinitarian sects would be the most pure sects of Christianity. At least if you are referring to Christianity as it was originally understood in its earliest years.

Non trinitarians were dubbed as heretics during the first synod of Constantinople, and even before were not accepted into becoming bishops of the church.

Also Arianism was not the earliest incarnation of Christianity. The apostolic era is.

It's the current greatest, yes.

It's the closest you can get to the Church of the first Ecumenical Councils nowdays. But overall is right, "the purest form of Christianity" must be some Arianism like JW.

No, its idolatry is alien to both scripture and the fathers.

>Christianity as it was originally understood in its earliest years
You mean like John 1?

The earliest types of Christianity is extinct now It was certainly Jewish rather than proto-Orthodox

John was written 60 years after Jesus' death tho, it's the least reliable gospel out there.

Nope, that would be the Church of the East. Chalcedonians are ok, they just need to realize Nestorius wasn't a heretic, and that Cyril was kind of being a jerk (although Nestorius' use of the word "person" didn't help much).

No. The trinity was made to unite the vast majority of Christians because early on there were varying offshoots. Trinity has no basis and is actually refuted by scripture. It was a human made concept to just to "everyone is right, so lets have a united canon Christianity".

Early Christianity did not talk of a trinity nor was the trinity ever really a major focus before the council at Nicaea.

They were labeled heretics, but I'm not Christian so I don't care. And they were labeled such not for valid reasons, but because if they took a non-trinitarian view then the vast majority of early Christians would refuse the council and continue being various sects and do their own thing rather than cooperate. So, the most "pure" Christianity outside of maybe a few gnostics or something, would be JWs and 7 Day Adventists. At least if you actually go according to history and scripture and not what a bunch of guys made up.

>Arianism
>Earliest form
the real truth would be that we don't really know all that well.

It was added in to the gospels latter on

There is no "purest" version of a religion based on history you dumb autismos.

The purity of a religious denomination or sect rests on the purity of dogma and its continuity. Gnostics and Arians are not part of this continued tradition because they drifted to far away from the main tradition and therefore "broke" the general agreements made in the synods in terms of dogma.

The Greek Orthodox Church is a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The "churches" (Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.) within the Church exist for administrative, cultural and historical reasons, but they're still all the same Church.

It's the closest you can get. If you wanted pure Christianity then you'd have to disregard Paul's changes for gentiles which was made to keep Christianity alive.

So, you'd have to stick to the dietary laws, circumcision, and be a Jew. But if you are gonna go with what Paul said, then the earliest form you can get to is some version with no trinity, sticking to the dietary laws, etc. Those were dropped out of Christianity over time because nobody wanted to keep doing it. But such Christian sects do still exist, so those are the purest forms.

>John was written 60 years after Jesus' death
By an eyewitness...

Consider suicide

Delusion

Christianity existed for hundreds of years before the synods, unless you count Jerusalem, which was probably not as decisive as Acts portrays it

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

OP asked. If he wanted dick sucking over Orthodox Christianity then he should have asked for that rather than asking how it stacks up compared to the earliest forms of Christianity we know of. And, sorry, but the closest are JWs and the 7 Day Adventists. Go be butthurt somewhere else. I don't care about who is right or not, but those are objectively the closest to early Christianity. Tough shit. Go read a history book about the origins of Christianity.

Yeah, that sounds like something someone actually said and not something made up latter.

Go learn about the history of your religion. What I said isn't exactly hidden knowledge. We do have a good idea of what early Christianity was like and it is nothing like it is today.

Why would you think so? The text itself never claims it. And the theology and christology so different from the sinoptic's, it's obvious they were invented sometime in between. I mean, in John Jesus claims to be identical to God the Father, arguably the most important message in all the Gospels, yet for some reason earlier gospels claims to report this fact. It's obvious that the idea of Jesus' divinity wasn't well established yet in the 60s but became the mainstream by the 90s.

No. Just... no.

The early church fathers didn't just pull the trinity out of their asses, it was already established as a concept very early on. The church just took forever to codify doctrine.

Absolutely wrong.

> And everyone who would claim succession from you in some form or the other should receive the same powers
Oh, wait, this is not in the book.

> it was already established as a concept very early on
Neither Paul nor the Gospels have the concept though, it first appears in the late 2nd century.

Ya gonna show me where this evidence of a trinity is in early Christianity? Because so far nobody has apparently seen such information. Surely you can show me where this widespread concept of a trinity appears before the pandering use it served at the council of Nicaea.

Is that pic suppose to imply Orthodox are creationist? Is this another "fedora thinks all Christianity is American protestanism" episode?

...

No. Just a picture that's kinda on topic given I was discussing historical vs modern Christianity.

>Orthodox Christianity
>founded in 33 AD
>Jehovah's Witnesses
>founded in 1870
>Seventh-day Adventists
>founded in 1863

Yeah you be the judge.

>Orthodox
>founded 33 ad

Even if it was, that wouldn't make it more correct. How well they fit what Christianity preaches does define what the earliest forms of "pure" Christianity are. Because gnostic sects rose up early on too and I don't think you're here thinking the demiurge is real.

Messianic Judaism also fits the bill of early Christianity to a degree.

as a non religious person who perceives this discussion as the religious equivalent of 'what color of shit should i paint my room?', why should i consider practicing christianity?

Most modern Christians agree with origen if they have any opinion of it at all
>inb4 American evangelical statistics
Not relevant to most Christianity.

>neither Paul nor Gospels have the concept though
It is never outright stated but it is definitely hinted at multiple times.
>inb4 hurrrrr those were added later!!!1!

>widespread
I never made that claim retard, nor am I claiming that the trinity was a formalized doctrine because there really wasn't any formalized doctrine outside "Jesus is the savior"

You retards are acting like the trinity is a concept that was just pulled out of someone's ass in time for the council of nicaea. Ignatius was talking about Christ, Father and Spirit in the early 100's. Some formulation of the trinity more than likely existed within the church from the beginning.

>earliest forms of "pure" Christianity

33 years from the Passion is earliest form.

What are you arguing exactly? You don't know anything about the lineage of Orthadoxy

>The most important theological fact in Christianity
>Being """hinted""" at in the Scripture
Yeah, totally make sense.

The concept was there, but not like you're thinking. People spoke of god, Jesus, and the holy spirit but it was never viewed as three people as god. Nor was it ever widespread. It was a minority view until the council of Nicaea took the idea and ran with it to appease all the various sects and still have them worship one god.

I know the lineage they claim, but anyone can claim they are the true believers or come from the pure path. But the actual church was not founded then. Because if they were then boy did they fuck up pretty hard.

Suggesting that the current Orthodox Church resembles the earliest teachings of the apostles and Christ is--most likely--a great inaccuracy.

Faith plays no role in a academic discussion of early Christianity, only what is most probable according to the evidence is worth considering.

You realize your arguing theology at this point, right? Your admitting that Orthodox was founded extremely early even if not 33 AD but just saying you disagree with their interpretation of scripture due to X,Y and Z.

It's not even hinted at. There is one verse to baptize people in the name of the son, father, and holy spirit. That is it. It is never expounded upon. And given the earliest forms of Christianity we know it doesn't seem to have been a popular idea or even looked at in that way. It was more a poetic way to say to baptize people for god, the messiah, and the holy spirit which is just the logos Greek idea. So, basically baptize them in that same spirit and in memory of them. That is a far cry from "THE TRINITY IS REAL ITS THREE GODS BUT ONE GOD" like some wannabe Hindu shit. And god all through the OT always makes it a point to say he is the only god, singular, with no equal. But the council must have made some real good arguments and pandered hard since they established the canon.

>also what's the difference between this and other orthodox churches?

They believe that Christ was born from anal sex.

>It's not even hinted at. There is one verse to baptize people in the name of the son, father, and holy spirit.

a verse that was almost certainly added latter

I never said Orthodox was established early. I said even if they did it wouldn't make them any more Christian given how far they deviate. Orthodox wasn't a thing until 1054. And even if you go back to before the schism there were quite a few hundred years of Christian belief before the council of Nicaea was even a thing. And what came out of that council pandered to everyone, sure, but what came out of it wasn't the same Christianity that preceded it. And the few that were were wiped out as heretics. Guess Christ was right to say beware those who come in his name, huh?

>never viewed as three people as God
Tertullian defended the concept pretty early on, even though his conception of it is heretical. It was certainly there. It doesn't matter if it was the dominant view or not (it definitely wasn't, especially among the laity)

>there is one verse to baptize in the name of the son, father, and holy spirit. that is it.
Wrong, how could you forget John 1? This isn't even discussing much of the verses that have been taken (even by ante-nicene church fathers) that point to a triune god

>[citation needed]
I wouldn't be particularly surprised though

This.

We have moving goalposts. user talks nonsense about the earliest Christians like Adventists lol when Orthadox has been doing the same thing since the start.

>but what came out of it wasn't the same Christianity that preceded it
Whats with the obsession with purity? Things change constantly. "sola scriptura" is a proteshit invention.

Was it? Never heard that. Then I'll correct myself and say there are no verses then. But did ya have a resource for that? That'll be an interesting read.

To be honest I forgot where I read it.

The OP asked about purity. And by purity I assume he means closest to what Christ supposedly taught and preached. And if we look at the earliest Christians and their beliefs, those closest to that time period, then no, Orthodox isn't even fucking close. And the ones I mentioned like JW, 7 day adventists, and messianic Judaism we can see that they are the closest because they are more like the Christianity in those early years. And even they have some variance and differences in doctrine. I'm not claiming that this makes them more correct, but if ya want to be in a sect of Christianity that is most like the earliest forms then those are the major ones you'd want to be a part of outside of being non-denominational and just trying to recreate early Christianity as best you can.

Typical bullshit claims.

1 John 5:7 was probably an addition though

>closest to what Christ supposedly taught and preached
>things like JW
>things like 7DA
no.

>everything I don't like is an addition
how convenient.

? I've been defending the Trinity you fool.

It applies across the board to this thread.

Sort of, except the comma johanneum is not in any version of the scriptures until the 9th century.

It is an addition.
Even without it I think the Trinity is still pretty evident when scripture is taken as a whole.

They are. JW cuts out the trinity, 7DA keep to the dietary laws, and messianic Judaism keeps to the concept that Christianity is for Jews alone since that is who the messiah was meant to come for. The latter two are especially early variants because that's pre-Pauline Christianity who changed a lot of things because he wanted to expand Christianity to gentiles and getting rid of the dietary laws and other Jewish influences was the easiest way to do that. He had to make changes because neither Romans or Jews liked them overall, so to survive it had to change. And it caused a pretty big rift when he made those changes. Showing that the earliest Christian groups found his changes a radical deviation from what they understood Christianity to be.

This is like some bullshit conspiracy theory.

Paul wasn't just making it up as he went along, when Jesus spoke about coming not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, he meant that he didn't come as an adversary of the law but as someone, the only person, who was able to meet every requirement. Jesus substituted the Law for a new covenant.

The people that defend the sabbatarian meme forget that there is a lot more to the Law than the circumcision and dietary memes, such as animal sacrifice and purification rituals. Which is exactly what Paul argued, because he was right and James was wrong.

The bullshit about the trinity being "made up" for the council of nicaea makes no sense either. Why the fuck would they pick one of the lesser held theological view points if the whole purpose of making up the doctrine was to try to unite the church? The trinity, or at least a binitarian view, are the most logical when the whole bible is considered.

It is also worth noting that the Law never applied to non-Jews in the first place, which is another area where James was fucking up