03-14-2010, 02:30 AM
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
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