Greek Bishop Equates Zionism to ‘Satanism’

[daledo]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/greek-bishop-equates-zionism-to-satanism/?ref=world

A Greek Orthodox bishop who was criticized by Jewish groups, the Greek government and some coreligionists for blaming Greece’s financial problems on a conspiracy of Jewish bankers and claiming that the Holocaust was orchestrated by Zionists issued a statement on Thursday in which he denied that he was anti-Semitic but also equated Zionism to “Satanism.”

The bishop, known as Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, said during an interview on Greek television on Monday that Jews “control the international banking system.” He added: “Adolf Hitler was an instrument of world Zionism and was financed from the renowned Rothschild family with the sole purpose of convincing the Jews to leave the shores of Europe and go to Israel to establish the new Empire.”

In response to the outrage caused by his remarks, the cleric posted a statement (in Greek) on his Web site in which he stood by his theories and described himself as a friend of the Jewish people but an enemy of Zionism, a Greek newspaper, To Vima, reported.

Here is an English translation of the bishop’s complete statement, first posted online by John Sanidopoulos, a Greek-American blogger, and verified by a Greek-speaking reporter for The New York Times:

December 23, 2010

On the occasion of the concerns raised by the European Jewish Congress with regard to my interview with the MEGA television channel on December 20, I have to say the following:

1. The things I said during my television appearance on the show “Society Hour Mega” are strictly my personal views and opinions, which I have repeatedly expressed… verbally and in writing.

2. I respect, revere and love the Jewish people like any other people of our world according to the teaching of the incarnated Son of God and the true Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer, who was heralded by all the Prophets and was incarnated through the Jewish nation.

3. My public vehement opposition against International Zionism refers to the organ that is the successor of the “Sanhedrin” which altered the faith of the Patriarchs, the Prophets and the Righteous of the Jewish nation through the Talmud, the Rabbinical writings and the Kabbalah into Satanism, and always strives vigorously toward an economic empire set up throughout the world with headquarters in the great land beyond the Atlantic for the prevalence of world government and pan-religion.

4. I consider like any sane person on the planet the Nazi regime and the paranoid dictator Adolf Hitler as horrible criminals against humanity and take a stand with all honor and respect against the Jewish Holocaust and any other heinous genocide such as that of the Pontic Greek and Armenian people. Besides, the Greek nation mourns thousands of martyrs from the criminal Nazi atrocities.

+ The Metropolitan of Piraeus, Seraphim

Thanks to Mr. Sanidopoulos for the translation, which he prepared for his blog on Orthodox Christianity, Mystagogy (http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/), and to the reader who drew it to our attention.

[Billiam]

It will be interesting to see what the follow up to this is... Icke , in his new book called it "Rothschild zionism" to prevent any confusion...

[norman]

The last tweet that got Arthur Kwon Lee nuked?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPcCSPfasAEMXan?format=jpg&name=medium


https://x.com/SamParkerSenate/status/1798924792621662652
1798924792621662652

[Jaak]

¨¨The tengu fears the samurai. Lol . In case people dont know what is ¨Tengu¨.
1808237046756266310
1808237898162135328

[norman]

The 5th century is the time period from AD 401 (represented by the Roman numerals CDI) through AD 500 (D) in accordance with the Julian calendar. The 5th century is noted for being a period of migration and political instability throughout Eurasia.

Wikipedia

That was also the period when Rome was in big trouble facing an existential threat from the real early 'followers' of Yesu who were spreading his healing and educating people all over the Mediterranean coastal lands.

Later, they fixed the problem by creating a foreign army to slaughter those very early and original 'Christians' without having the blood directly on their own hands which would have scuppered their plan to pretend to adopt 'Christianity' and spread a Satanic inverted version of their own after there were no original 'Christians' left to dispute what they were up to.

Here's an interesting story about the creation of Islam. Make your own mind up about how true it is.

"The founding and purpose of Islam" (https://app.box.com/s/l89lfqzk1rq8prl1sarw05i82mgg0loq)

The darkest Judaic practices are Babylonian. The Babylonian Empire over ran and ruled Judea for hundreds of years. When Babylon was eventually sacked and burned powerful people escaped ( probably in all directions ). The inner core Roman Senators were not genetically related to the local people around Rome. They came there from somewhere else.

Why do I bother to mention Romans and Babylon at all ? Because we can't really separate the Kabbalah/Talmud Judaism from the probable origins of what became the Vatican power house. In a way, The Vatican is the senior partner in all shady crooked affairs usually ascribed to "Jews".

[shaberon]

I tend to agree that the Bishop of Rome is--its own sect--although I would put questions to:



The darkest Judaic practices are Babylonian. The Babylonian Empire over ran and ruled Judea for hundreds of years. When Babylon was eventually sacked and burned powerful people escaped ( probably in all directions ). The inner core Roman Senators were not genetically related to the local people around Rome. They came there from somewhere else.

Why do I bother to mention Romans and Babylon at all ? Because we can't really separate the Kabbalah/Talmud Judaism from the probable origins of what became the Vatican power house. In a way, The Vatican is the senior partner in all shady crooked affairs usually ascribed to "Jews".


because I firstly have to stumble at Elijah. This prophet unleashed Yhwh as a deliberate assault on the deity of Ekron, which is the only instance I know of where the motive was because a deity was "false or wrong". Because Elijah's deity cannot be traced past him, we do not see why it would have been the original deity of Judea, either.

My suggestion is the Babylonian Captivity is where they got "Moses" and the ideas of flood and exodus myths.

Secondly can you be more specific about what "Senators" were non-Romans?

Evidence of the very early Roman church is extremely sparse, most likely because it would have been someone's house. That occupies about a hundred year lacuna before it seems there was a public facility. Roughly put, I don't think Saint Peter worked the way they say.

Usually, if you say "house" it means a Patrician, since Rome was only about 20% freestanding houses, and mostly apartments for about 30,000 people.




I would say that Babylonian history is extraordinarily significant, because it is, rather, evidence of a predatory financial class, from whom, the public is supposed to be protected by the king and government. The main device of relief is called Debt Jubilee which even in English is from the Hebrew Yobel, Ram's Horn, because this is an ancient custom that was done basically everywhere and why it is in the Book of Leviticus that you can start to find the value.

The mastery of the Romans, it seems to me, is to break this off and make us forget it.


Now since the OP is quoting a Greek, then, I would have to say I am compelled to say the same as him:



2. I respect, revere and love the Jewish people like any other people of our world according to the teaching of...


and then I simply choose from many of the ways I could say it.

Because he is Greek, he is already taught they don't "deserve special favors" such as Zionism, they are in the pitiful position of having actually rejected the Savior. Because it leads to criminal activity, he is compelled to oppose it. It's a tenuous circumstance, because you have to be entirely forgiving to someone you think is making the worst possible spiritual choice.

Once you get used to it, you can actually live that way perfectly fine.

[norman]

Secondly can you be more specific about what "Senators" were non-Romans?




Lee Merritt has her own spin on it that's worth a listen. She thinks she can trace them to Phrygia in what is now Turkey. She also traces the Pharaohs to the same place.


In this part Lee Merritt digs deeper into the past.

Time To Name The Enemy Part 3 | Dr. Lee Merritt
Jul 12 2024


https://rumble.com/v56lyo5-time-to-name-the-enemy-part-3-ep-4-dr.-lee-merritt-decentralized-media.html

v549pzh/?pub=1yatds

[shaberon]

She thinks she can trace them to Phrygia in what is now Turkey. She also traces the Pharaohs to the same place.



Okay. That could be intricate and looks a bit long to get some starting points.

I'm going to post a corollary, which, I would think that what Dr. Merritt or anyone else says, to be true, should match up to these parameters.

The main point is as given in a review by Pepe Escobar 2023 (https://michael-hudson.com/2023/05/pepe-escobars-review-of-the-collapse-of-antiquity/):


...before Greece and Rome, we had nearly 3,000 years of civilizations across West Asia doing exactly the opposite.



So, that's the point. It covers basically all of recorded history. The ancient world was the opposite of ours.

He is reviewing Michael Hudson, and, in case you are not familiar, Mr. Hudson spent years working in Wall Street economics. So he has all that insider knowledge. Then he turned around and studied *thousands* of Babylonian seals. He may be the world's foremost authority on this.

What he has to say is therefor relatively "new" to us, but, I think he has done a good job at blending ignored information with the regular archives. In this sense, he gives a list of Roman financial Senate Crimes (https://braveneweurope.com/michael-hudson-property-and-debt-in-ancient-rome):



Patricians Versus the Poor

The die was cast in 486 BC. After Rome defeated the neighboring Hernici, a Latin tribe, and took two-thirds of their land, the consul Spurius Cassius proposed Rome’s first agrarian law. It called for giving half the conquered territory back to the Latins and half to needy Romans, who were also to receive public land that patricians had occupied. But the patricians accused Cassius of “building up a power dangerous to liberty” by seeking popular support and “endangering the security” of their land appropriation. After his annual term was over he was charged with treason and killed. His house was burned to the ground to eradicate memory of his land proposal.



So, for example, if we follow the report then we find several named Senators over a span of centuries who do similar things. Therefor, if there is any external information on these people, we might be able to find foreign or other influence. I don't think I have noticed anything specifically about "Phrygia" in his writings. But those individuals are not his focus.


Instead he describes how Julius Caesar and Jesus (https://michael-hudson.com/2023/04/democratic-liberty-versus-oligarchic-liberty/) followed the same way:



Cicero found out that the so-called debt collectors were really working for Brutus, and it was Brutus who had made the loan at 42%. When his collectors asked for armed guards to go and kill everybody who wouldn’t pay the debt, grab all their land, and enslave their families, Cicero said, “he felt very bad about that. ”


...when Jesus gave his first big sermon reported in Luke, he unrolled the scroll of Isaiah to the point where Isaiah was calling for the year of the Lord, meaning the Jubilee year. Jesus said that was what his destiny was, what he had come to proclaim. There was apparently wide support among the Jewish population advocating the restoration of the Jubilee year against the Rabbinical school that opposed it and represented it. Luke said that the Pharisees loved money, and their leading Rabbis had their debtors sign documents. They would borrow money and waive their rights under the Jubilee year. That’s what Jesus wanted to change. So after Jesus gave his sermon, a lot of the population got very upset because they didn’t think it was fair to cancel the debts. The leading Jewish leaders went to the Roman pro-consul and said, “Well, we can’t put him to death, but you can because he’s seeking kingship.” They knew the magic word of invective that the Romans didn’t like– kingship. It was the Romans who agreed to put Jesus to death. The movement was way beyond Christianity. It was beyond Jesus. We know from the scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls that I’ve described in the preceding volume of the trilogy I’m working on– On the History of Debt. I cite the scrolls that were sort of a midrash of all of the debt cancellation advocacy of the Bible.


Brutus is not terribly obscure, and so if we look at his associates, then we can see who was pulling on the strings of power in that era.

I mean, I never thought about it, I went around under the impression that the Caesars were unsavory because they were autocrats or something--which may well be because that is "propaganda of the ages".

Of course, this would be a bit like ignoring the main message of Jesus was Debt Jubilee.


Well, that would ostensibly lead to Roman interest in distorting/re-writing his life.

Aside from scriptural issues, Hudson *does* begin to describe how the Roman church partnered with Senatorial favoritism to become a property owner. And of course this remains in situ.

What he says about Greece was more localized, that there were ambitious oligarchies that sometimes seized power and oppressed the people, but then these were mostly successfully revolted against. So Greece never quite developed a national character of doing so. We have to conclude that the later half of the Roman Empire was utterly unlike anything that had ever existed.

Even the definition of a king changes from the way it was just used by Jesus into those who have the Divine Right to do so.

It perhaps is redundant to trace Senators to Turkey, because the whole Latin civilization comes from Saturn who was a refugee from the Trojan War, ca. 1,100 B. C. E.. Rome is just those Latins who moved to a spot on a river, and then rose as their own kind of Wolf. Dorian and other Greeks are probably similar. This is not surprising since Anatolia has been radiating influence since at least 5,000 B. C. E. and we run out of records and are reduced to genetic and archaeological finds.



Now, if Roman Patricians shared a mentality with the Pharisees, then, in the way that Roman Jesus is not King Jesus, Jews are not Judaeans:


The Pharisees told the Messiah that they had never gone into bondage. This could only apply to the Edomites because the tribe of Judah was taken into captivity ...


Jews are Edomites (https://www.israel-a-history-of.com/the-edomites.html):



...and to such an extent did they influence the Romans to favour them - that the Romans appointed one of them as governor of Judea, overlooking the choice of many true native Jews for the position.

They appointed Antipar (an Idumean or Edomite) to the position, and he later appointed his son Herod as King of the Jews. Herod was condemned by Christ, and killed all the first born in an attempt to kill the prophesied Messiah at birth. If this was their level of influence (through lies and corruption) in politics, you can only imagine the influence they eventually gained in the temples with the priests of Judah (the Pharisees and Saducees).


Most or maybe even all of the Jews who denied Christ were Edomite imposters and most of those who accepted Him were true Judean Jews of the line of the tribe of Judah. Those who did believe Him became known as Christians and not Jews any longer and these Edomite Jews who were particularly strong and numerous in the synagogues became the Talmudic Rabbi Jews of the Middle Ages...


These days we have a bad case of Edom x Rome.

The class of Usurers is a much older problem, that used to be handled by Good Kings; coming off the tail end of the manufactured system is "immortal property" under the tenets of Roman law, which occupies all of the medieval history and now.

[shaberon]

As an afterthought from the last post, it seemed to me it might be viable to extend the counter-argument through the Torah.

I just blamed Elijah for being very nearly the root of all evil.

Then we found Jesus attempting to reset the mistakes, and so we think his character may have been stolen and popularized with a few tropes that have nothing to do with him.

Later, the difficulty with Islam is they say the Crucifixion never happened. If King Jesus is more historically accurate than Miracle Jesus, then, of course he was executed--but I think we might have to allow the possibility he was given drugged or medicated wine and survived the ordeal and was helped to escape from the tomb.

In general, I, at least, am willing to accept a historical Jesus of whom *none* of the major religions are giving the right story.

Similarly, I am willing to accept there was a historical Judean religion that simply had nothing to do with Elijah and later accretions. I think this is pretty easy to see if we de-construct Melchizedek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek):


With respect to Genesis 14:20, Hebrews chapter 7 verses 2 and 4 in the New Testament state that the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoil to Melchizedek.

Psalm 110:4 is cited in the New Testament letter to the Hebrews as an indicator that Jesus, regarded in the letter as the Messiah, had a right to a priesthood pre-dating the Jewish Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews 5:5–6).


Okay. The point would be that Genesis and Hebrews are *both* redacted material that is used to install a point of view and make a connection where none is.

We would note that these all come indifferently under "later memories":


Genesis 14:18 introduces Melchizedek, a "Priest of the Most High God" (El Elyon)

11Q13 (11QMelch) is a fragment of a text, dated to the end of the second or start of the first century BC, about Melchizedek, found in Cave 11 at Qumran in the West Bank and part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Melchizedek is seen as a divine being in the text and is referred to as "El" or "Elohim"

The Qumran Scrolls, also indicate that Melchizedek was used as a name of the Archangel Michael, interpreted as a heavenly priest; Michael as Melchi-zedek contrast with Belial, who is given the name of Melchi-resha 'king of wickedness'.


That is also notable since most "devils" are simply a smear on someone else's god, "beliyaal" is just a word with no other context than "worthlessness", which perhaps is more appropriate.

The original background was:



An Ugaritic reference older than 12th century BCE to a god named Ṣaduq ('righteousness') has also been found, a possible forerunner of the inclusion of Zedek in personal names. Zedek probably personified the justice function of the sun god Shamash, a deity considered the possible tutelary deity of Jerusalem.

“Zedek is probably to be identified with the deity known as Išar among the Amorites and Kittu in Babylonia, and thus a hypostasis or personification of the sun god Shamash’s function (Shemesh) as divine overseer of justice.”


The name is formed in parallel with Adoni-ṣedeq אדני־צדק‎, also a king of Salem, mentioned in Joshua 10:1–3, where the element malik ('king') is replaced by adon ('lord'). Parallel theophoric names, with Sedeq replaced by Yahu, are those of Malchijah and Adonijah, both biblical characters placed in the time of David.



So Genesis (Torah) and Hebrews (New Testament) are relying on the far older Psalms to justify their claim.

The Psalms were in the time of, perhaps authored or compiled by, King David.

Jesus only ever spoke of El, the god of Melchizedek:

In Christianity, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is identified as "High priest forever in the order of Melchizedek"



You could ignore Ugarit until 1928 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit)--thus making it easy to cover up whatever they said. But we have it now. Most likely, the god of David and Solomon was the same. Jesus has even been said to be in its perpetual priesthood. This rolls back before anything recorded:

Based on archaeological soundings, the site was occupied beginning in the eighth millennium BC.


And it becomes incredibly close:

Five of the Amarna letters found in Akhenaten's capital of Egypt from the mid-14th century BCE were written in Ugarit.


And if we go through this, Egypt is abundantly available, and there never is any exodus.

So, I would suggest that some early Kings and Prophets of Hebrew scripture were legitimate, meaning, it was just a branch of El Elyon, until Elijah.

I don't think these mix. I don't think I can just take whatever Elijah wants and use it as a replacement. I would say that is the main problem of the god of the Bible, is that it has stealth packed something valid from before itself, and made the false equivalency with its lesser, local deity.

This may not suit everyone's taste, since Shammash was the deity of the Assyrian Empire that destroyed Israel, but I don't see how El and Zedek are anything but local dialects applied to the same deity in an appropriate way.

This way, we do not have to utterly condemn scripture, in fact anyone who was going for the cream of it will be unaffected. If you shifted your attention to something that seems like it should be there, but is not being clearly taught, then, yes, there is something living behind it; just happens to be the same as already recognized by others. The idea that universal deity could ever be "new" is preposterous; there is not necessarily anything wrong with using one's own language, but if the "translation" involves harming or oppressing anyone on a theological basis, that would be wrong.

[norman]

I think I'm going to have to go back and read the New Testament all over again from cover to cover, since I've been piecing together the last 2 or 3 years worth of history and dot joining.

It's been nearly 20 years since I properly read the whole thing and I only have a vague grasp of what "Jesus" said and DIN'T say. When I read it I had not the slightest idea that Catholicism ( and it's derivatives ) were an entirely different thing from the teachings and healings of 'Jesus'.

I want to have a go at doing something similar to what Thomas Jefferson did. I want to distinguish between the words of Jesus and the rest of the fluff that Catholicism ( and the Nicaean council's "Paul bias" before that ) plastered all over it introducing vast amounts of the "old religion" thinly disguised as Christian and a theological doctrine, which doesn't make sense anyway because doctrine is an Old Religion thing not a Jesus thing.

I now understand what the Romans actually pulled off, with their 'Christianity'. It was a bit like one of those old radio entertainment shows I remember, where a contestant is challenged to sing the words of one song to the tune of a different song, e.g. the words of Jailhouse Rock to the tune of Morning Has Broken etc. It's usually hysterically funny when it's done in that context but as a way to snuff out the Jesus phenomenon replacing it with something later generations won't even know or understand is not the real thing, was devilish.

For an example, and why I need to go back and read the whole thing again, is that I can't remember Jesus ever having talked about the character of Archangel Michael. I've only heard the church talk about it or theological intellectuals talk about it.

[dim]

*yawn*
Ρegurgitating the Zionism card as scapegoating the misery of a nation as capitalist as any, distracting the mass out to an ever elusive threat always looming over but never found. Dear orthodoxy you're as much as guilty.
Been eons blaming the Jews. Are you not tired yet ?

[norman]

*yawn*
Ρegurgitating the Zionism card as scapegoating the misery of a nation as capitalist as any, distracting the mass out to an ever elusive threat always looming over but never found. Dear orthodoxy you're as much as guilty.
Been eons blaming the Jews. Are you not tired yet ?

Are you talking to me ?

[shaberon]

I think I'm going to have to go back and read the New Testament all over again from cover to cover, since I've been piecing together the last 2 or 3 years worth of history and dot joining.



It is worth being somewhat familiar with it.

No published version will give a realistic picture of itself.



When I read it I had not the slightest idea that Catholicism ( and it's derivatives ) were an entirely different thing from the teachings and healings of 'Jesus'.


It may be that Orthodoxy is not something Jesus, personally, designed, but Catholicism is another thing still.

There are a few things which have come up recently that appear to frame "how" the New Testament was coagulated.

The most distressing point is that Paul never heard of Jesus.

This is a specialized area of study, but, for the most part, there are only about two things that are reliably attributable to Paul, who more greatly resembled what we know as Marcionites.

Epistle to Hebrews contradicts the authorship by its own text. The worst culprit is Acts of the Apostles, which appears to be completely fabricated.

By arranging the chronology of authentic Paul, it is most likely he left Judea about six months before Jesus started preaching. In the further stages of his career, he was actually disputing the followers.

Paul was not speaking the educated language of the church Fathers, but, the populist language of the military and slaves, that more strongly resembled the cult of Serapis. The focus of this belief is recorded as:


IS Chrestos


The oldest extant New Testament is Codex Sinaiticus, and you can easily see that what was originally written was "Chrestos", and someone scratched out part of the "E" to make an "I".

The difficulty with Orthodoxy is, for example, saying that Paul "was" Saul of Tarsus, who "now" preaches Jesus Christ. This is almost certainly a literary invention and contrivance.

I, personally, disagree with their theology too much to actually join it, but, I would take into consideration that for the most part, they follow a humanistic path, whereas the Roman center takes all this much further into something fierce.


The next thing I noticed is that, even if you try to study Greek biblical text, whenever the original manuscript has "IS", you find it auto-completed into Jesus. There are other groups of two- and three-letter symbols where this is ignored and re-written for you. However if you look at one of the last Marcionite churches from ca. 240s, it is cast in stone.

That shifts the view, because now you can say with virtual certainty that David and Solomon were Melchizedekites, Paul was Serapis, and John the Baptist was Mandean.

Those are all "native" or "original", they are pretty close to saying the same thing in different languages. Each of them receives a hatchet job that appears "final and complete" in the sphere of Roman knowledge through most of the 1900s. It is only recently that we have re-collected enough manuscripts and other archaeological material to do anything but guess at it. Upon examination, everything so far bears some strong indications.

Babylonian seals really do discuss the duty of a King to resist a predatory financial class, and most of Canaanite paganism was a similar thing that can be shown to be whittled down in stages.

In the era of Jefferson, it is interesting that the United States *does* make use of this same quote in Leviticus, where it was with what was originally the Statehouse Bell in Pennsylvania. But they did not truly understand it. It was about how in England, you went to jail for praying or believing in a certain way. It was about freedom from "that". But comparatively, this is intellectually trivial compared to any region where you were not persecuted--and, perhaps welcome to openly discuss--anything.

The "freedom" of the original quote would have the context of King Jesus vs. the Pharisees, basically the same thing as in the Babylonian seals. On that, yes, Jefferson and many others wanted to prevent their modern equivalent, even if they had never been taught the more accurate historical details. They did the best they could with what they had.

I don't really "blame the Jews" for much. The Romans blasted them into a diaspora in the 200s, which means mainly into western Europe. Well, we find "pogroms" against them from medieval times starting around the 1200s, banning them from England, slaughtering them all over Italy, until they had mostly migrated to the Ukrainian area by the 1600s.

This is all mostly by Rome and its legacy.

I have found an Indian manuscript from the 500s that uses "Denarius", and, in a copy of the same thing from around the 700s, no one knew what it was.

Italy or Latin people had certainly started as another facet on the same international gem, but, yes, it appears they eventually provided some intellectual and theological problems causing a Dark Age. I would tend to find that a pretty accurate name from the murder of Hypatia in the 400s to the Medici Renaissance.

It's a millennium of unchecked domination followed by colonialism.

Ironically, "Indian explorers" of the colonial era were astonished to find evidence of Roman trade and Christianity.

It doesn't seem they have any idea what happened to themselves or their ancestors.

Yes, the effect is greatly like replacing a solid song with fluff garbage.

Again, this can be culturally distinguished by the way in which Roman Bishops regulated their areas and the education, and how their perpetuation in the 1600s as Electors was the cause of most of the early modern wars.

That is what Orthodoxy calls Anti-Christ.

Zionism is Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans; it's Christian.

Around then through the 1700s, it is correct there was a dispute about whether Jews should be admitted to Freemasonry, which again was Christian. It is not until post-Napoleonic 1815 that there is actually an "open door", at which point you find the admission of the first Rothschild in Frankfurt, at a common level without even any right to vote in the Lodge. So this angle of thinking is entirely inaccurate until the mid-1800s in the peak of the British Empire.

Orthodoxy cannot have Zionism as a doctrinal Anti-Christ, since there was no such thing. It vehemently rejects what it calls "false representations of Christ". They won't like it if I suggest re-reading "Christos" as "Chrestos", although this *does* appear how the Ecumenical Councils made their own "bubble" that eliminates external prior beliefs.

Almost all of the Nag Hammadi texts are "Sayings" Gospels rather than "Biographical". What this reflects is a wide panel of "Sayings" attributed to a person, and they are not the same. The "biographical" information does not seem to be present until later iterations of the mythos. And it is self-contradictory.

Consequently, I have become willing to accept that there was a historical Jesus who joined the Egyptian Theraputae, and then raised an Ecclesia, that is, an Assembly, of disciples who roamed the streets helping the sick, hungry, and homeless. This is not a Church, which is a building, an institution, a Circe or Circle.

Mandeans do not "accept" Jesus, in the sense that they quarreled and disagreed with some of the followers. They do not seem to have dealt with him personally in any context, so, i. e. they have no point-by-point argument against anything he said, there is nothing like that. Similarly to Paul, and to most inhabitants of the Roman Empire, they were suspicious about a "new" cult, but cannot tell us anything about how it may have directly connected to its supposed founder.

They specifically reject Moses on several grounds. They actually do have a background on rejecting the development of "Judaism", portraying it as a kind of deviation from their own system.

John the Baptist was merely their "southern tip" because they represent Harran, even since pre-history of 3-4,000 B. C. E.. It is the Crossroads of East and West. All of the Babylonian dynasties were confirmed by Harran. It was never extinguished by Rome and had a flourishing pagan (Sabean) center until the 1200s.

That means you could have an "honest dialog", there were Jews, and Orthodox churches, and so it was top-tier education, trade, tolerance, and so on, for actually all of mankind's known history until it has been caused to be forgotten.


Gaza was remarkably similar, connecting a short overland route to what we call Eilat, to Egypt and the Mediterranean.

Neither one was ever its own country, but, claimed within the borders of various contending empires.

When that becomes late Roman statecraft and Catholic doctrine, discussion is over.

By the phrase "Medici Renaissance", I mean an attempt to return the philosophy and practice of Byzantine humanism, which can also be documented at great length as being ousted and replaced by Aristotelian forces, which is what we call our modern educational institutions.


Reducing the "correct" sayings of Jesus from the quantity of "attributions" is beyond my personal scope. It would of course be the case that, for example, Thomas spread what he could which was unaffected by any church or outside opinion. An example of the scale of Thomasene Christianity would be that the Queen of Georgia was interred there in the 800s.


Since this is based in Aramaic, it shares the Mandean:


Nasrani or Nazarene


which is usually familiarized as "Jesus of Nazareth", except it means an order of priesthood.

Over time, Mar Thoma Nasrani were incorporated into the:


Assyrian Church of the East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East)

In 424, it declared itself independent of the state church of the Roman Empire, which it calls the 'Church of the West'.

According to its tradition, the Church of the East was established by Thomas the Apostle in the first century. Its liturgical rite is the East Syrian rite that employs the Divine Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari.

The Church of the East, which was part of the Great Church, shared communion with those in the Roman Empire until the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius in 431.


Because it is Nestorian or non-Ephesus:


Oriental Orthodox Churches shared communion with the imperial Roman church before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, and with the Church of the East until the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, separating primarily over differences in Christology.

Because it accepts Ephesus, there is:


Armenian Oriental Orthodoxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches)

which is non-Chalcedonian compared to:


Eastern or Greek Orthodoxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church)


otherwise they are very similar:


Oriental Orthodoxy shares much theology and many ecclesiastical traditions with the Eastern Orthodox Church; these include a similar doctrine of salvation and a tradition of collegiality between bishops, as well as reverence of the Theotokos and use of the Nicene Creed.


What that represents is apostolic succession that lacks a pope or anything much of a "governing body". Modern inter-faith dialogues have concluded that these different views on Christology are not an issue or standoff point.

In stark contrast, you can see the Roman system drops out:


In the years following Chalcedon the patriarchs of Constantinople intermittently remained in communion with the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (see Henotikon), while Rome remained out of communion with the latter and in unstable communion with Constantinople. It was not until 518 that the new Byzantine Emperor, Justin I (who accepted Chalcedon), demanded that the church in the Roman Empire accept the council's decisions.


At that point you have a thing that has seeded itself by molding Patrician property laws to its will, which, regardless of the reason, can just about literally be seen to break from the world at a given point.

Then, realistically, what has a new 1500s printing press in Switzerland have to compare to:


Oriental Orthodox Christians consider themselves to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission, and that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles. Three rites are practiced by the churches: the western-influenced Armenian Rite, the West Syriac Rite of the Syriac Church and the Malankara Syrian Church of India, and the Alexandrian Rite of the Copts, Ethiopians and Eritreans.


Outside of Rome seems to be closer to more apostles.

With the demise of the Roman state, I would suggest that European history is stamped by the fact that the Roman church loved the political unit, France. The rival power of them was Venice (which existed as a Republic until 1814) which hated France. Chaucer and Dante both expose this.