Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
shameful
#16
Rafa,

It'll take some time to research these topics. In the meantime, I suggest that you utilize the nearest academic library. Therein are your answers.

May God grant you felicity

Kevin
Reply
#17
Rafa Wrote:Another claim the Jacobites made (I don't say I believe this) was that the COE didn't do what the byzantines asked being outside the borders,

How very naughty of them.

Quote: but their catholicos was appointed by the Zoroastrians (!) and basically did what the Shah asked for. That doesn't sound very independent.

Presumably if they just obeyed the byzantines they would have been independent?
Reply
#18
Rafa Wrote:and that this resulted in the synod of beth-lapat in 483 where "independence" from the rest of the church happened once Mar Babowai was martyred by the Persians who were enraged by the letter.
.

Hadn't the COe already asserted its independence as early as 410?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1367">http://www.religion-online.org/showchap ... 553&C=1367</a><!-- m -->


Quote:The Synod of Dadyeshu met in AD 424 in Markabata of the Arabs under the presidency of Mar Dadyeshu. It proved to be one of the most significant of all Persian synods. The first synod of Isaac in AD 410 had decided that the Catholicos of Seleucia Ctesiphon be supreme among the bishops of the East. The Synod of Dadyeshu decided that the Catholicos should be the sole head of the Persian church and that no ecclesiastical authority should be acknowledged above him. In particular it was laid down that "easterners shall not complain of their Patriarch to the western Patriarchs; every case that cannot be settled by him shall await the tribunal of Christ." For the first time, this synod referred to the Catholicos as Patriarch and that their Catholicos was answerable to God alone.

The Synod declared:

By the word of God we define: The Easterners cannot complain against the Patriarch to western Patriarchs; that every case that cannot be settled in his presence must await the judgement of Christ...(and) on no grounds whatever one can think or say that the Catholicos of the East can be judged by those who are below him, or by a Patriarch equal to him he himself must be the judge of all those beneath him, and he can be judged only by Christ who has chosen him, elevated him and placed him at the head of his church. (In the early Catholicate of Timothy I (780-823). the canons of various Nestorian synods were collected into one volume known to us as Synodicon Orientale. The Synodicon Orientale begins with the Synod of Mar Isaac in AD 410, though it is probable that there were gatherings of Persian bishops prior to AD 410. It is an important historical source for the history of the Persian church.)
Reply
#19
Shlama Akhay.

There was never any relation between Antioch and Seluecia. Of course those who wish to alter history will try to assert that the Catholicos in Babylon was appointed by antioch. This theory has been disproved by many independent scholars like Wigram and almost all modern scholarship.

There has never been anyone in the east appointed by anyone in Antioch. Anyone claiming otherwise is from the antiochene tradition.

The Coe looked not at Antioch, but at Edessa as its heritage.

Also the myth of bar-Sauma's involvement in the trial of Babowai was written by his adversaries which is something we should keep in mind. The Coe has no belief in that fable. Often times when someone from one church was martyred the one side would blame the other, kind of like when the western Christians would blame Jews for every calamity that came their way. The Coe also has stories where someone from the Jacobite side conspired with so and so to persecute them. These allegations always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Shamasha

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#20
Shlama Akh.

Of course... Antioch is a Petrine authority as is Babylon, Rome etc. All of the ancient sees we have much respect for as sister churches.

I'm sure there were people on all sides who were characters like exist today. No one was or is innocent in all of that craziness.

But to suggest antioch appointed bishops in persia is about as credible as suggesting Babylon appointed Alexandrian or roman bishops. It's ludicrous. There's absolutely no historical record of that except in their stories written after Ephesus happened. Read wigram or baumer or any other historian on the topic and even they say it's rubbish.

The problem this presents to their worldview is immense. The fact that an always independent church outside of roman-Byzantine jurisdiction doesn't fit well with their "original" church model. So they needed to invent some sort of imaginary connection between the nearest see in the west, Antioch, and Babylon.

The historic facts of course don't agree with their fantasy. The Coe has always been independent and in fact there was no mention of Antioch when the council at markabta was held. In fact they chastised any bishops who complained about their patriarch to edessene bishops who they labeled "western". How much more western was Antioch than edessa? And no mention of Isaac's supeior at Antioch during that synod?

It's so ridiculous that even in roman seminaries today they ridicule this assertion by Antioch of any claim of jurisdiction in Sassanid Persia.

Shamasha

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#21
Shlama Akhi Rafa.

We have great respect for three people we call The Three Greek Fathers. They are Theodore, Diodore and Nestorius.

Theodore is known in Aramaic as "mpasqana" which means he who interprets. Before the tragedy at Ephesus he was universally regarded and famous in all countries for his exegesis. Note he was not an easterner or part of the ecclesiastical structure if the Coe. But like Mar Ephrem became a doctor of the universal church even in the west, Mar Theodore became a doctor of the Eastern church.



Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#22
Quote:Also the myth of bar-Sauma's involvement in the trial of Babowai was written by his adversaries which is something we should keep in mind. The Coe has no belief in that fable. Often times when someone from one church was martyred the one side would blame the other, kind of like when the western Christians would blame Jews for every calamity that came their way. The Coe also has stories where someone from the Jacobite side conspired with so and so to persecute them. These allegations always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

"To the spider, her string of eggs are pearls."
Reply
#23
Shlama alokhun,

To all who are interested, the link below might be helpful in understanding this point in history from the CoE perspective.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28123997/Mar-Ishaq-410-Synod-Scribd">http://www.scribd.com/doc/28123997/Mar- ... nod-Scribd</a><!-- m -->

God Bless,

-Nimrod Warda-
Reply
#24
Rafa Wrote:One thing though, Mar Ibas was obviously Assyrian no? In his letter to the Bishop of hardashir he said Cyril repented of his monophysitism, is this true?

Shlama Akhi,

No, Ibas was not part of the CoE nor was he an Assyrian. He was a priest in Edessa, his superior was the bishop Rabbula who espoused Monophysitism. Ibas was present at the council of Ephesus, a western council. He later disagreed with Rabbula, as did many in Edessa. After Rabbula died, Ibas was appointed to be the bishop of Edessa. Ibas was later condemned and ousted by Constantinople.

By this time Akhi, Rome was in control of Edessa whereas prior it was Persian territory. So this is really a matter of western councils and leaders, not eastern (Persian). So while Ibas agreed with Theodore and Nestorius, as did the CoE, nevertheless he was not ours.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#25
You have to remember Akh, none of this was any of our business. Cyril, Theodore, Nestorius, Ibas..,,these were all western characters.

We didn't even hear about the events until way after the players were dead and gone.

Don't mean to sound brash but this was a western issue and after we heard about it from the winning side and were asked to accept their decision we showed them the door....followed with a big boot (or sandal) to their better side.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#26
We had better things to do than argue about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin....like trying to survive the constant massacres ... Bringing the good news to those who were lost.... minor scriptural things like that.

If you look at the history of these things it's rather pathetic and continues to this very day. It's the west the brought schism into the body of Christ, not the east.

Look in the yellow pages and find the hundreds of groups descended from Ephesus on down. There's only one group from seluecia ctesiphon. And they're still being slaughtered for their faith and marginalized by their brethren in name only.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone
Reply
#27
Rafa Wrote:I agree Shamasha Paul. If you look at the timeline things started getting bad after Ephesus, it was never the fault of the COE. Worthless reasons for schisms too. This depresses me a bit actually.

And somehow we always get dragged into it....calling us "Nestorians" as if we follow a Greek Patriarch from Constantinople (the rival city of the rival empire.) Nestorius was one of their own, not one of ours.

Why they insist on involving us is beyond me. Why, because we refused to condemn a man already dead and unable to come to his own defense? That makes us his followers? I swear Shiite vs. Sunni makes more sense to me than these so-called Christian debates. <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#28
Rafa Wrote:If it was a Muslim it would be less vicious then what I experienced.

Not long after the pagans in the empire were wiped out by force (I mean, persuaded nicely), they turned cannibalistic on each other.

I've often wondered if it was Islam that saved us from Byzantium, after all!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#29
Peace and Blessings:

Consider the following:

The Mohammedans, however, were far from wishing to impose their language by force; on the contrary, we find that in 853 the Khalif Al Motewakkel published an edict ordering Jews and Christians to teach their children Hebrew and Syriac, and forbid- ding them the use of Arabic;' this would seem to indicate that Arabic had made rapid progress and was in public favor??????It was under the Khalif Al Mansur, the real founder of the dynasty of the Abbasidae (754-774), that the patronage of Syrian learning began; in fact, before this the Arabs had not paid any attention to literary pursuits. We learn that the salaries given to these Syrians were very considerable. George bar Bochtjesu, the physician of Al Mansur, had an income equal to about a million of francs yearly; this George was the founder of the famous Bocht- jesu family, which continued for many generations his fame for medical learning. ???..It is a notion not yet sufficiently refuted that fanaticism was a distinctive trait of the Arab conquerors. The mere facts show the contrary; religious liberty and autonomy were allowed to Christ- ians, as a rule, and an unusual impartiality, one might even say favor, was shown them, especially by the dynasty of the Abbasidae. To them were given posts of the greatest confidence, and they were even appointed governors over cities and provinces. An anecdote is related by Amru of the Khalif Motaded Billah. One of his principal magnates, Abdalla ibn Soleiman, was accused to the Khalif of favoring the Christians. On his presenting his answer to this accusation, the Khalif said that, far from thinking the worse of him for this, it was his own opinion that Christians ought to be more trusted than Jews, Mohammedans or Magi; for the Jews were always looking forward to a universal dominion, the Mohammedans would be always trying to oust him from his place, and the Magi bore continually in mind that they were the former lords of the country. Then we have curious accounts of the way in which the Khalifs, as, for example, Harun al Rashid and Al Mamun, would make long visits at different monasteries, and when pleased would confer on them privileges. The care of the Imperial treasury was also conferred on Chris- tians, and it is a notorious fact that the court physicians at Bagdad were invariably Syrian Christians, the Khalifs thus following the custom of the Persian kings, in whose empire the famous Syrian medical school of Gandisapur was situated (Frothingham, A.L. "Historical Sketch of Syriac Literature and Culture." (1884): 200-220.)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)