What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

I'm reading *St. Seraphim of Sarov: On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit (Conversation with Motovilov)* ([pdf](https://eeparchy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/05/ST.-SERAPHIM-OF-SAROV-ON-THE-ACQUISITION-OF-THE-HOLY-SPIRIT-Conversation-with-Motovilov-.pdf)) . For context: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_of_Sarov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Motovilov On pp. 5–6, Seraphim says (emphasis mine): > "Your Godliness deigns to think it a great happiness to talk to poor > Seraphim, believing that even he is not bereft of the grace of the > Lord. What then shall we say of the Lord Himself, the never-failing > source of every blessing both heavenly and earthly? Truly in prayer we > are granted to converse with Him, our all-gracious and life-giving God > and Savior Himself. **But even here we must pray only until God the > Holy Spirit descends on us in measures of His heavenly grace known to > Him**. **And when He deigns to visit us, we must stop praying**. Why > should we then pray to Him, 'Come and abide in us and cleanse us from > all impurity and save our souls, O Good One,' when He has already come > to us to save us, who trust in Him, and truly call on His holy Name, > that humbly and lovingly we may receive Him, the Comforter, in the > mansions of our souls, hungering and thirsting for His coming? > > "I will explain this point to your Godliness through an example. > **Imagine that you have invited me to pay you a visit, and at your invitation I come to have a talk with you**. But you continue to > invite me, saying: 'Come in, please. Do come in!' Then I should be > obliged to think: 'What is the matter with him? Is he out of his > mind?' > > "So it is with regard to our Lord God the Holy Spirit. That is why it > is said: Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the > nations. I will be exalted in the earth (Ps. 45:10). **That is, I > will appear and will continue to appear to everyone who believes in Me > and calls upon Me, and I will converse with him as once I conversed > with Adam in Paradise, with Abraham and Jacob and other servants of > Mine, with Moses and Job, and those like them.** > > Many explain that this stillness refers only to worldly matters; in > other words, that during prayerful converse with God you must 'be > still' with regard to worldly affairs. But I will tell you in the name > of God that not only is it necessary to be dead to them at prayer, but > **when by the omnipotent power of faith and prayer our Lord God the Holy** > **Spirit condescends to visit us, and comes to us in the plenitude of** > **His unutterable goodness**, we must be dead to prayer too. > > "The soul speaks and converses during prayer, **but at the descent of > the Holy Spirit** we must remain in complete silence, in order to hear > clearly and intelligibly all the words of eternal life which he will > then deign to communicate. Complete soberness of soul and spirit, and > chaste purity of body is required at the same time. The same demands > were made at Mount Horeb, when the Israelites were told not even to > touch their wives for three days before the appearance of God on Mount > Sinai. For our God is a fire which consumes everything unclean, and no > one who is defiled in body or spirit can enter into communion with > Him." As I understand it, Seraphim describes prayer as "inviting" the Holy Spirit, and teaches that when the Spirit "visits" in a special way, one should cease speaking (even cease verbal prayer) and attend in silence to what God communicates. This sounds mystical/contemplative, and also resembles some Pentecostal/charismatic language about experiencing the Spirit's presence. How do Protestants generally evaluate this kind of pursuit? Specifically: - Do Protestants believe Christians should *seek* special "visitations" or intensified experiences of the Holy Spirit during prayer, beyond the Spirit's ordinary indwelling? - Would Protestants agree with the idea that, when such a visitation occurs, one should stop speaking and listen in silence for communication from the Spirit? - Are there particular Protestant traditions (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal/charismatic) that would affirm or reject this, and on what biblical/theological grounds?

**Lucifer had a dream, what is his dream?** Scriptures teaches, >from the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks."- Fallen Lucifer frustration can be seen, as if he was deprived of something that he wanted to become, like wanting a dream that can no longer be fulfill in the presence of God, and so, he proudly shouted, I can do it on my own, without God. ***The Five I WILL*** is the manifestation of frustration. >**The five “I Wills” are found in the Book of Isaiah:** 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! 13 And thou saidst in thy heart, >I will ascend into heaven, >I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; >and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; >14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; >I will make myself like the Most High. >**Isaiah 14:12-14** We know from Wisdom9:4 that the artisan is seated on the Throne beside God. >**DRA** Give me wisdom, that ***sitteth by thy throne***, and cast me not off from among thy children: **Did Lucifer dream to become the *"consort/Wisdom"* of God, for him to sit beside the Throne of God, and when this did not happen, the frustration ended in rebellion and shouting the 5 I WILL?

According to an Orthodox that replies to someone else in an exchange regarding marital sex, he states, "Remember the words of Psalm 50" (Psalm 51 in Masoretic-based Bibles): > I was conceived in iniquity and in sins did my mother bear me We were never meant to have sex before the fall, so at some level no sexual activity could be considered "pure." After asking him about this view that no sexual activity could be considered pure because we weren't meant to have sex before the fall, he produces an amount of quotes from the early church fathers about the matter: > Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from *On the Making of Man*: > > > Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a > certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him > who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is > closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life > before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also > our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the > angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, > the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel > declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come > upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from > equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that > we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic > nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except > that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of > men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase > mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. > > Saint Gregory Palamas, from his homily *On the Annunciation*: > > > God sent the archangel to a virgin and made her, who continued a virgin, His mother by means of a salutation alone. If He had been > conceived from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor sinless, > nor the Saviour of sinners. The flesh's impulse to reproduce is not > subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not > entirely without sin. That is why David said, "I was shapen in > iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5). So if the > conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new > man, nor the author of new life which will never grow old. If He were > from the old stock and inherited its sin, He would not have been able > to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to > make His flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification, able to wash > away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, > and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them. > > The same saint, from the homily *On the Gospel Reading for the > Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman*: > > > What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, > because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas > in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why > we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil > which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a > concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the > tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy > theologians [Saint Gregory the Theologian] calls human procreation, > "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David > said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" > (Ps. 50:5) > > Saint John Chrysostom, from *On Virginity*: > > > When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for > him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for > sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and > every form of corruption were alien to their soul. > > The same saint, from *Homilies on Genesis*: > > > Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that > intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were > living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with > desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of > nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, > and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . > Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how > they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as > if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did > not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need > for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . . > > In another place, he says: > > > “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the > practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their > disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there > was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not > subject to the needs of the body? > > And again: > > > Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the > curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The > necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and > skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs. > > Saint John of Damascus, from *An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox > Faith*: > > > Carnal men abuse virginity , and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, Cursed be every one that raises not up > seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made > flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's > nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin > soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held > sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked > and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that > they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto > dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of > the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and > bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the > race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be > preserved through the procreation of children. > > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that > “Be fruitful and multiply ”does not altogether refer to the > multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply > the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to > the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, > knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression > in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made > “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, > then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this > also includes chastity. > > Saint Athanasius, from his commentary on the Psalms (specifically > Psalm 50:5 in this case): > > > The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced > marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection > of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are > “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the > forefather. > > Saint Symeon the New Theologian, from the *Ethical Discourses*: > > > There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on > us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission > of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the > Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin. > > Saint Maximus the Confessor, from *Ad Thalassium*: > > > He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his > existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his > existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not > create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s > commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and > sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the > liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though > placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is > sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual > procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in > consequence of his sin. > > Tertullian, from *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*: > > > To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As > by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to > yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, > too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and > submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed > themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic > nature. > > I could go on, if you want, but I believe this is enough. My question is, *why did the early church fathers think that sex was a consequence of the Fall?* if we think that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall According to this reply in Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange to *Did Adam and Eve not have sex in the Garden of Eden?* (granted, they can be wrong as they are not the Church fathers).

Is there anyone who can answer Yes, to the question, ***who is like God***? **Archangel Michael**: *Who is like God*? **Lucifer**: No, I can't be, because I am not created in the image of God. **Jesus Christ**: Yes, I am!, I am the visible image of the invisible God. > 15**The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.** 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. - Collosians1:15-16 Is there anyone else, who can claim the ***"I am"***? > "God became man so that man shall became gods." - Athanasius Jesus said, you can do greater things that I am... > 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves. ***12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.*** 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. - John14:11-13 We know that God like Jesus as His visible image, also God created mankind, male and female in His image and likeness. >27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis1:27 But we know, God is a Spirit, how then can a man claimed the **"I am"?** One Great Marian Saint named, St. Maximillian Kolbe was puzzled at the answer of the Lady saw by Bernadette in the known Lourdes apparition in the 19th century. The young Bernadette asked the Lady in her vision, *who are you?* The Lady answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception"** St. Kolbe was puzzled by the answer because the word **"I am"** is divine in nature and in no way can be attributed to Our Lady. And so, if St. Michael asked again, ***who is like God?*** Can the Our Lady answered using the word ***"I am"***, can be seen, that She perfected the image and likeness of God in Her whole being, body mind and soul? Remember, the soul can be transform into a spirit, and since God is a Spirit, and anyone who can worship the Father in spirit and truth, had reached theosis or full divinization. *Here is the question:* **The question is: Can Our Lady, looking at Her holiness, righteousness and transformation as written in the bible, and extra-bibilical sources, can answer YES! to the question of St. Michael?** ***"I am"* the Immaculate Conception!** somehow can be seen, as high degree of holiness, as if Mary is seen here, as quasi-incarnating the Holy Spirit, as contemplated upon by St. Kolbe. And, the RCC is being attacked and criticized for over 500 years since the Reformation, as if the Catholic Church is elevating the holiness of Mary as the fourth member of the Holy Trinity. In closing, If Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, said the **"I am"**, is that somehow connected to why St. Gabriel bowed down to Her, and more events in Her life, leading to Her life, that can answer YES! to the question of *"Who is like God"?* Also, the question, by Protestant esp. the Bible Alone Believers, how can Mary hear all the prayer address to Her, is She a God, to hear all those supplications?

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

According to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which Apostle is believed to have celebrated the Eucharist first? The question is quite simple. Is there any tradition of any apostle in particular who is believed to be the first to say mass, following the Resurrection of Christ? I am not overly confident that such a traditional belief exist within either Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism! One may use references from Sacred Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers or other sources if applicable like the writings of recognized Christian mystics, like Catherine of Siënna to help find an answer.

The Upper Room is associated with the word "cenacle". >The term "cenacle" refers to a small faith-sharing group, particularly in the context of the Roman Catholic Church. It is derived from the Latin word "coenaculum," meaning dining room, and is historically associated with the site where Jesus held the Last Supper with the apostles. The cenacle is also the location where the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles on Pentecost, making it a significant site in Christian tradition. Since cenacle is associated with Jesus at the Last Supper, where Jesus was seen as teaching the Apostles how to consecrate the bread and wine, it follows that the Apostles at the Upper Room, during the 50 days preparation, had celebrated the First Holy Mass. The possibilities is high, as we know that during the consecration of the bread and wine, the Holy Spirit will come down to sanctify it, and so, the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Upper Room, is because of the First Celebration of the Holy Mass. And the Book of Acts described the Apostles as if they were drunk, correlating with drinking the wine, like in the Last Supper. **Is there a Catholic writings, pointing to the Upper Room, where the first celebration of the Holy Mass, and the Apostles or Apostle acting as the Bishop/Priest celebrant, was believed to occured?**

Most discussions of the Creed suggest that both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and that the only substantive difference between them is the Filioque. Yet there is one other significant difference: The Catholic Creed includes "God from God" in the section on the Son of God (see ), while the Orthodox Creed does not have a similar clause (see , ). Why do they differ on whether to include this language, and does it signal any difference in dogma? NOTE: As of January 11, 2026, this question has not been answered. The discussion has provided documentation of the difference by not an explanation of why they are different.

I will often engage in dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians who tell me that the doctrine of their churches affirms that salvation is by grace through faith. If that is true, then what distinguishes Lutherans from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians?

Nursing Madonna / The milk giver icon tradition - 1. Is this apostolic according to the catholic and orthodox church? - comparing to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for the unwritten traditions.() > **2 Thessalonians 2:15** > Therefore, brethren, **stand fast, and hold the > traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word**, or our epistle. (**stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word**) is often pointed to by Catholics and Orthodox as the apostles teaching unwritten traditions. ------------------------- **Is a person condemned by the 7 ecumenical council if not accepting this practice according to the church?** > If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in > his humanity, let him be anathema. If anyone does not accept > representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema. If > anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord > and his saints, let him be anathema. **If anyone rejects any written or > unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.** > > https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum07.htm The 7 ecumenical council condemns every person that does not accept any written on unwritten tradition, this traditions of the nursing Madonna is not written in the scripture, it must be considered unwritten tradition. It seems that this tradition can be found in the catholic, eastern orthodox and the oriental orthodox churches. -------------------------------------------------------------- **(Content notice: This post contains depictions of partial nudity.)** **Pagan similarities:** **It is worth to mentioning that there are several similarities with the pagan traditions only in this single icon, this is what bothers me, how will Orthodox or Catholics explain these similarities:** 1. The nursing Madonna - Same as Isis nursing Horus. 2. Holding child - same as Isis holding Horus. 3. The title queen of heaven - same as Isis. - ((The golden ass - Book XI)) 4. The child is connected to the physical sun - same as Horus. 5. The child is born on the winter solstice when the days begin to get longer. - same as the child Isis holds Horus - (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, ISIS AND OSIRIS, 377 )(The winter solstice - (Natural history 18.221)) 6. Halo behind the head as the pagan tradition for the idols. ------------------------------------------ 1. and 2. **The nursing Mdona or “Galaktotrophousa” (Γαλακτοτροφουσα, meaning “the Milk-Giver”) unwritten tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church:** > The specific Icon **celebrated** on July 3 (and January 12) **dates from the > 6th century A.D.** and resided in St. Sabbas’ lavra (a type of monastic > community). Before his death, St Sabbas prophetically stated that in > time a pilgrim sharing the saint’s name, of royal lineage from Serbia, > would visit, and to him the Icon of the Mother of God, the > “Milk-Giver”, should be given as a blessing from the Monastery. God’s > time is not like our time, and so it was not until 700 years later > that the prophecy was fulfilled. The pilgrim was the Serbian prince > Rastko Nemanjić, who had taken the monastic name “Sava” (i.e. Sabbas) > when a youth. https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/milk-giver-icon-not-scandalized-by-the-incarnation/ > The iconographic type of the Virgin Milk-Feeder is rooted in the > Gospel narrative of Jesus Christ's birth (Matthew 2) and the verse: > «Blessed is the womb that bore You, and **the breasts which nursed You!**» > **(Luke 11:27)**. https://www.monastiriaka.gr/en/blog/panagia-galaktotrophousa-the-virgin-lactans-or-milk-nursing > **Luke 11:28** > > He replied, **“Blessed rather are those who hear the > word of God and obey it.”** > > https://biblehub.com/luke/11-28.htm ------------------------------------------------- **3. The title queen of heaven for Isis:** >“O blessed Queen of Heaven, > whether you are the Lady Ceres who is…” **> - Lucius’ Prayer for the Assistance of Isis (The golden ass - Book XI) “Most holy and everlasting, blessed Lady” - Lucius’ Prayer of Thanks** > http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium_Religionis/isis.php > https://ia801200.us.archive.org/15/items/TheGoldenAss_201509/TheGoldenAsspenguinClassics-Apuleius.pdf **3.1 Queen of heaven Eastern Orthodox prayer:** > Rejoice, queen of Heaven and earth Who dost open unto us the gates of > Paradise! https://orthodox-europe.org/english/liturgics/prayers/akathist-joy-of-all-who-sorrow/ **3.2 Ancient church father on the title queen of heaven for Saint Mary:** **Epiphanius of Salamis c. 375 AD:** > the holy Virgin is anything more [than a woman], he called her “Woman” > as if by prophecy, because of the schisms and sects.... ....... the > error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account.... preparing the table > for the demon25 and not for God..... even though Mary is all fair, and > is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped..... Such women > **should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not frighten the world. They must > not say, “We honor the queen of heaven**.”... > > > **Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** > > Page 644 in the pdf > https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf **Sources about - Epiphanius and the other church leaders:** Надо отметить, что Епифаний Кипрский занимался поиском различных христианских исторических сочинений при написании своих книг, а также был знаком и общался лично практически со всеми предстоятелями поместных христианских церквей. **Translated to English:** It should be noted that Epiphanius of Cyprus was engaged in searching for various Christian historical works when writing his books, and was also acquainted with and communicated personally with almost all the heads of the local Christian churches. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1_%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8B ------------------------------ **4. From some church fathers we learn about the praying towards the East and it seems that the physical sun is connected somehow to the true light. Christ the Creator of that light (the sun) as Pope Leo 1 says:** (Short quotes from different church fathers - Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Basil the great, Ambrose, Augustine, John Damascus ... and pope Leo 1 about very similar tradition that he refutes) > We stand at prayer we face the East, where the rise of the heavens > begins ...facing the light! As the symbol of the Holy Spirit, it loves > the (radiant) East, that figure of Christ...while its body is turned > toward a heavenly body...you turned to the east...to Christ...looks > upon him directly...look always to the east, where is the rising Sun > of justice... ...that the soul is looking upon the dawn of the true > light...In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers > are made looking towards the sunrise in the east. Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west,(Pagan temples?) that people > might be taught to turn to the east when facing the images....the East > is the direction that must be assigned to His worship…...but few > know.....the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by > anyone...But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/109124/pope-leo-i-and-worshiping-towards-the-east-how-can-he-say-all-this-and-still-w **Pope Leo 1 seems to be against this practice, also the most ancient churches in Rome seems to be not oriented with entrances from West so people to be able to pray towards the East:** > The foolish practice of some who turn to the sun and bow to it is > reprehensible > > such a system of teaching proceeds also the ungodly practice of > certain foolish folk who worship the sun as it rises > > even some Christians think it is so proper to do this > > We are full of grief and vexation that this should happen, which is > partly due to the fault of ignorance and partly to the spirit of > heathenism: > > because although some of them do perhaps worship the Creator of that > fair light rather than the Light itself, which is His creature, > > yet we must abstain even from the appearance of this observance: > > for if one who has abandoned the worship of gods, finds it in our own > worship, will he not hark back again to this fragment of his old > superstition, > > as if it were allowable, when he sees it to be common both to > Christians and to infidels? (The apostle is saying similar thing - 2 > Cor. 6:15) From Sermon XXVII (c. 450 AD) of Pope Leo I https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360327.htm **The apostle:** > **2 Cor. 6:15** And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? > > **Romans 1:25** Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is > blessed for ever. Amen. -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- **5. The winter solstice birthday of Horus - 25 December for the roman times? Also celebrating the conception 9 months before the birth:** > Thus we shall attack the many boring people who find pleasure in > associating the activities of these gods with the seasonal changes of > the atmosphere or with the growths, sowing, and plowing of crops, and > who say that Osiris is being buried when the corn is sown and hidden > in the earth, and that he lives again and reappears when it begins to > sprout. For this reason it is said that Isis, when she was aware of > her being pregnant, put on a protective amulet on the sixth day of > Phaophi, **and at the winter solstice gave birth to Harpocrates,** > imperfect and prematurely born, amid plants that burgeoned and > sprouted before their season . . . **and they are said to celebrate the > days of her confinement after the spring equinox.** > > **(Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, ISIS AND OSIRIS, 377 )** https://archive.org/stream/plutarch-isis-osiris-loeb/Plutarch_Isis_Osiris_Loeb_djvu.txt https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0239%3Asection%3D65 -------------------------------------------------------------- **5.1 About the winter solstice on 25 December, by ancient writings:** **(Today the winter solstice is around 21-22 December - but for the romans it seems to be 25 December)** **From sources:** https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/The_natural_history_of_Pliny_1855.pdf > Roman writers regularly quote the date of the solstice as the 25th of > December. > > **Columella, a 1st century CE agricultural writer, on the subject (De > re rustica 9.14.12):** > > ab occasu Vergiliarum ad brumam, quae fere conficitur **circa VIII > kalendas Ianuarii** in octava parte Capricorni ... > > From the setting of the Pleiades to midwinter, which occurs roughly > **around the 8th day before the kalends of January** (i.e. 25 December), > at 8° in Capricorn ... > > > > **Pliny the Elder, also 1st cent. CE (Natural history 18.221):** > > ... omnesque eae differentiae fiunt in octavis partibus signorum, > bruma Capricorni **a. d. VIII kal. Ian.** fere. > > ... and all these changes occur at 8° in the (zodiacal) signs, the > winter solstice in Capricorn on roughly **the 8th day before the kalends > of January** (i.e. 25 December). > https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2015/12/christmas-and-its-supposed-pagan-links.html > > > > http://novaroma.org/nr/Roman_dates#Table_of_Dates > > Table about 25 - http://novaroma.org/nr/Roman_dates#Table_of_Dates http://novaroma.org/nr/Roman_dates#Table_of_Dates -------------------------------------------- **6. The halo on the icons as the pagan tradition for the "gods":** ------------------------------------- https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112600/do-the-catholic-orthodox-believe-that-the-halo-is-apostolic-unwritten-traditio https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0 https://mount-athos.org/en/mount-athos/icons-relics/galaktotrofousa-hilandar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_Madonna https://folia.unifr.ch/documents/306232/files/Bacci_2007pisabizantina.pdf https://es.pinterest.com/pin/612348880621533991/ https://russianicons.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/the-nursing-goddess-from-isis-to-mary/ https://www.academia.edu/113383765/Veiling_and_Head_Covering_in_Late_Antiquity_Between_Ideology_Aesthetics_and_Practicality https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/milk-giver-icon-not-scandalized-by-the-incarnation/ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/jesus-portrayals -------------------------------------------- Date 7th-6th centuries B.C. https://www.mfab.hu/artworks/1812/ Isis lactans (Isis nursing Harpocrates). Marble, approximately one and a half meters high. Vatican Museums, Pio Clementino Gallery A GRAECO-EGYPTIAN TERRACOTTA ISIS AND HARPOCRATES CIRCA 2ND-1ST CENTURY B.C. https://www.christies.com/lot/a-graeco-egyptian-terracotta-isis-and-harpocrates-circa-5546815/?intobjectid=5546815&lid=1 Roman terracotta statuette of Isis lactans, from Herculaneum 1st c. CE Soprintendenza Pompei, inv. 76724 Photographed on display in the exhibition "Il Nilo a Pompeii: visioni d'Egitto nel mondo romano" (The Nile at Pompeii: visions of Egypt in the Roman world) at the Museo Egizio in Torino, Piemonte, Italy.... https://www.flickr.com/photos/dandiffendale/30258001226 Statuette, Isis, Horus 664–30 B.C. Julia Domna, AR denarius, Rome mint. IVLIA DOMNA AVG, draped bust right / FECVNDITAS, Fecunditas seated right, holding one child in her arms and and another standing at her feet. RIC 534; RSC 42. https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/julia_domna/t.html All this is from sources on the internet, I can not guarantee how accurate it is.

According to the catholic and orthodox, is this apostolic unwritten tradition or adopted pagan tradition as mentioned by newadvent website? If it is adopted pagan tradition, then this means that other pagan traditions could be incorporated in the church? Do they fall under the anathema of the 7 ecumenical council, since these traditions are unwritten? If this is the case, would there be apostolic unwritten traditions and pagan unwritten traditions in the church as unwritten traditions? How should this be understood? ------------------------------------------- > **Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. ( 7th ecumenical council):** > >If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let > him be anathema. - [Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D.](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum07.htm) > **2 Thessalonians 2:15** > >Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and **hold the traditions** which ye have been taught, **whether by word, or our epistle**. > >https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm ---------------------------------------- > > **1 Corinthians 4:6** > >Now these things, brothers, I have applied to > myself and Apollos for your sakes, **so that in us you may learn not to > go beyond what is written**, so that no one of you will become puffed up > on behalf of one against the other. > > https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/4-6.htm --------------------------------------- > **2 Cor 6:14-18** > >14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with > unbelievers: **for what fellowship hath righteousness with > unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And > what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that > believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of > God with idols?** for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath > said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, > and they shall be my people. **17 Wherefore come out from among them, > and be ye separate,** saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; > and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall > be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. ---------------------------------------------- > **Deut. 12:30-31** > >30 **Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them**, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and > that thou inquire not after their gods, **saying, How did these nations > serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so > unto the LORD thy God:** **for every abomination to the LORD, which he > hateth, have they done unto their gods;** for even their sons and their > daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. -------------------------------------------- This information is from the internet, I can not guarantee how accurate it is. But it seems that most if not all fake "gods" had halos before the Christian iconography? **Pagan:** **(Content notice: This post contains depictions of nudity that may be visible on the photos of the pagan mosaics.)** (2nd c. AD) Dionysos, Nike & Maenad (Bakche) - Zeugma mosaic - Triumph of Dionysus (Gaziantep Museum - Turkey) This pavement comes from the House of Poseidon. 1.https://www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/50616496196 2.https://pbase.com/dosseman/dionysostriumf 3.https://pbase.com/dosseman/image/170042225 4.https://pbase.com/dosseman/daedalus ---------------------------------------------- (Naked!) (circa 3rd-4th c. AD.) A ROMAN MARBLE MOSAIC PANEL Depicting the goddess Venus rising from the sea, supported by two tritons, both with a human torso, equine legs and a fish-tailed lower body, the goddess haloed, holding a mirror in her left hand and a cosmetic applicator in her right, nude but for a mantle wrapped around her hips and legs, coiled bracelets on each wrist, a fish in the lower corners. 1.https://tr.pinterest.com/pin/1121607482184251399/ 2.https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-1818486 --------------------------------------------------------------- (3rd - 4th century) Mosaic from the House of Menander with Zeus. Room 20, Panel A (Seattle Art Museum) - (Daphne, suburb of Antioch, Antakya) (limestone and marble tesserae) 1.https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/roman/mosaic-from-the-house-of-menander-with-zeus-3rd-4th-century-limestone-and-marble-tesserae/limestone-and-marble-tesserae/asset/6348234 2.https://antiochmuseumofart.org/house-of-menander/ 3.https://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/22214048901/in/pool-ancient_mosaics_in_turkey/ https://www.meisterdrucke.ie/similar/943506.html ------------------------------------------------ (2nd-3rd c. AD,) Roman mosaic showing Apollo and Daphne, (Princeton University Art Museum) --------------------------------------------------------------- (Naked)“The Triumph of Neptune,” a late 2nd century CE mosaic from La Chebba, Tunisia. The central scene depicts a bearded Neptune riding in a chariot pulled by sea horses; he is flanked by his sons Triton and Proteus. The corners of the mosaic feature women and agricultural scenes representing the four seasons. As bringer and withholder of water, Neptune would have held agency over seasonal change. Bardo National Museum, Tunis, Tunisia https://mythopedia.com/topics/neptune/ https://smarthistory.org/mosaic-decoration-at-the-hammath-tiberias-synagogue/ --------------------------------------------------------------- (Naked) One of the mosaic panels located in the museum of the city of Shebha in southern Syria. Each panel recounts ancient Greek myths introduced by the Romans in the mid-third century AD. This panel depicts Aphrodite and Oris, the goddess of beauty. The panel depicts women and the goddess of love competing to win the weapons of the goddess Oris. The panel is decorated with inscriptions, ornaments, and numerous aesthetic motifs that illustrate the myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahba ------------------------------------------------------------------- (123 AD) Roman mosaic of Hunting goddess Diana found in the (baths of Oceanus at Sabratha built in 123 AD) https://x.com/libyanhistory/status/873175058302324736 https://caffetteriadellemore.forumcommunity.net/?t=47244810 https://www.temehu.com/Cities_sites/museum-of-sabratha.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------- (Naked) Triumph of Poseidon and Amphitrite, showing the couple in procession. Detail of a large Roman mosaic from Cirta, Roman Africa (c. 315–325 AD, now at the Louvre) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune_%28mythology%29 ---------------------------------------------------- Hatay Archaeological Museum, Antakya, Turkey. Artemis, the fierce goddess of the hunt This mosaic of Artemis was discovered in the ancient city of Issus. It was found in the tepidarium of a bathhouse in the city. The 43-square-meter mosaic floor dates from Late Antiquity (3rd and 4th centuries AD). At the center of the mosaic is the goddess Artemis, ruler of the wild, and around her are figures of animals and plants. https://chroniquescynegetiques.com/2024/10/03/artemis-la-farouche-deesse-de-la-chasse/ -------------------------------------------------------- (Naked) Aion enthroned, holding a zodiac wheel in his right hand, a scepter in his left, his head surrounded by a holo or aura [3rd cent AD] - Arles, Musée de l'Arles antique - wm Aion (Greek: Αἰών) is a Hellenistic deity associated with time, the orb or circle encompassing the universe, and the zodiac. The "time" represented by Aion is unbounded, in contrast to Chronos as empirical time divided into past, present, and future. He is thus a god of eternity, associated with mystery religions concerned with the afterlife, such as the mysteries of Cybele, Dionysus, Orpheus, and Mithras. Source: wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aion_(deity) --------------------------------------------------- A grand mosaic of Isis and Serapis, Roman early 3rd century https://www.pinterest.com/pin/341288477982180030/ Roman mosaic depicting Isis and Serapis (3rd cent. AD) https://the-avocado.org/2018/03/05/navigium-isidis-an-ancient-religious-festival/ https://medium.com/@ancient.rome/why-are-greek-roman-and-norse-mythologies-so-similar-8bb530da993c Emperor Septimius Severus (193–211 AD) as Serapis and his wife Julia Domna as Isis on a mosaic from Huwara, Egypt. Altes Museum, Berlin. Early 3rd century AD. https://www.augustaraurica.ch/assets/content/files/publikationen/Magazin-AR/AR-2017_2_Isis-Fortuna_Ruetti.pdf Roman mosaic depicting Isis and Serapis (3rd cent. CE) https://cjapedia.com/happy-navigium-isidis-march-5 ------------------------------------------------------- Niche with a polychrome mosaic of Silvanus Excavated in 1861 in the Palazzo Imperiale, in a room next to the mithraeum. Date: reign of Commodus or Septimius Severus. W. 0.87, h. 1.57, h. of Silvanus 0.71. With text OSTIAE EFFOS ANNO MDCCCLXI. In front of the niche a lamp for two wicks was found, perhaps inv. nr. 625. A relief of Silvanus was found nearby. Inv. nr. 10729. Benndorf-Schöne 1867, nr. 551. Arachne 20773. Photo: SO IV, Tav. 211. https://www.ostia-antica.org/museums/mus-vm-ml-silvanus.htm ------------------------------------------------ **Considered Christian:** (7th c. AD) - (634-730 AD) - Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki. (Hagios Demetrios - Thessaloniki - Greece). Votive mosaic representation from the 7th century on the northeast pillar of the church. The basilica is famous for six extant mosaic panels, dated to the period between the latest reconstruction and the inauguration of the Byzantine Iconoclasm in 730. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagios_Demetrios https://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/img_C233a.html https://www.flickr.com/photos/60661697@N07/51241589472/in/pool-ancientgreece/ St. Demetrius. 7th century. Basilica of St. Demetrius, Thessaloniki. Mosaics on the pillars at the entrance to the altar and on the western wall of the main nave https://www.icon-art.info/bibliogr_item.php?id=21 https://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/rheb/rheb_mp.htm#1 -------------------------------------------------------- (No beard)(the end of 4th c. AD - the beg. of 5th c. AD) - (Christ)(Church of the Savior of the Latomou Monastery (Church of Hosios David)), (Thessaloniki, Greece). Mosaic with Christ and probably with Saints Peter and Paul on the sides - Lazarev attributes these mosaics to the end of the 5th beginning of the 6th century of the contemporary period to the Theodoric period connecting them to the mosaics of the basilica Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Hosios_David 2.https://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/rheb/rheb_mp.htm#1 3.https://ru.pinterest.com/anastasyatatarn/chiesa-del-salvatore-del-monastero-di-latomou-chie/ https://vk.com/photo-35220730_312236388 https://flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/15338085684/in/pool-2740017@N23/ Jesus Christ in glory. Mosaic in conch apses. End of 5— beginning of 6 th. c AD https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2581611.html https://ru.pinterest.com/pin/223843043962682817/ --------------------------------------- Justinian I AR Light Miliarense. Constantinople mint. Struck 527-537 AD. D N IVSTINIANVS P P AVG, pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust left / GLORIA ROMANORVM, Justinian, nimbate, standing facing, head left, raising hand and holding globe; star in right field; mintmark COB. DOC I 26. https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/byz/justinian_I/t.html -------------------------------------------- St. Aquilin Chapel, (4th c. AD ? Beg.of the 5th c. AD) mosaic. (No beard, short hair) https://www.flickr.com/photos/roger_joseph/5417358183/ https://vk.com/photo-35220730_312171522 Christ teaching the Apostles , Late4th century https://art.kunstmatrix.com/en/artwork/1882721/christ-teaching-apostles ------------------------------------------- Angelic Ranks (Dominions and Powers). Mosaic of the 7th century. Church of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. Nicaea. https://vk.com/photo-35220730_312783865 Heavenly Powers. Mosaic of the Church of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 7th century? (7 c. AD?, 9 c. AD?) (2 sources 7c. AD and 1 source 9.c. AD) (9. C AD) https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/ikona/iskusstvo-vizantii-4-15-vekov/4 (7 c. AD) https://www.icon-art.info/bibliogr_item.php?id=21 https://www.pravenc.ru/text/200147.html ---------------------------------------- Santa Costanza in Rome. End of the 4th c. AD. The Mausoleum of Costanza (Constantina) (VIII) This 4th-century mausoleum was built under Constantine the Great for his daughter Constantina (Costanza), who died in 354 AD. His other daughter, Helena, is also buried here. The mosaics on the ambulatory vaults are an excellent example of late antique and early Christian art. https://vk.com/photo-35220730_312171210 https://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/7556340750 https://www.mediastorehouse.com/search.html?search=ancient+halo ----------------------------------------- Mural painting of Jesus Christ from the catacomb of Commodilla. Rome, late 4th century. The symbols on either side are Alpha and Omega. Remember that the Christ is "beginning and end." Revelation 22, 13: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." https://vk.com/photo-35220730_312138059 https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/diglib-fulldisplay.pl?SID=20250124369513274&code=act&RC=49950&Row=109 --------------------------------------------- Mosaic of Orans and Donors (5th-6th century) Church of St. Demetrius - Thessaloniki - Greece. Wall mosaics from the small north colonnade in the Church of St Demetrius Thessaloniki, saved from the fire of 1917, 5th-6th c. Museum of Byzantine Culture, Thessaloniki, Greece https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/demetrios-thessaloniki -------------------------------------------- Santa Pudenziana in Rome. 390AD - (401-417) AD The 4th century Basilica di Santa Pudenziana contains some fine mosaics, including this one in its apse. I gather that it is the earliest Christian mosaic to be found anywhere in Rome (it dates from 390). As the excellent Cadogan guide to Rome says, 'artists had yet to decide on the familiar iconography of the saints; here all have become honorary Roman citizens ... in their senatorial togas'. https://vk.com/photo-35220730_312171270 https://www.flickr.com/photos/24151047@N05/47846198011 https://my-passion.blog/2018/11/29/oldest-paintings-of-jesus/ ------------------------------------------------- The Good Shepherd. Mid-5th century. Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, Ravenna. Mosaic in the lunette Лазарев 1986 - История византийской живописи. Т. 2. OCR hires #21.pdf https://www.icon-art.info/bibliogr_item.php?id=21 https://vk.com/photo-35220730_312236302 The Good Shepherd , c 425 AD Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, Ravenna, Italy https://art.kunstmatrix.com/en/artwork/1882044/good-shepherd https://my-passion.blog/2018/11/29/oldest-paintings-of-jesus/ https://byzantinenews.blogspot.com/2014/02/cfp-miracles-and-wonders-in-antiquity.html https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/ikona/iskusstvo-vizantii-4-15-vekov/1 ---------------------------------------------------- Baptism of Christ and the Twelve Apostles. Mid-5th century. Orthodox Baptistery, Ravenna. Mosaics in the dome Лазарев 1986 - История византийской живописи. Т. 2. OCR hires #21.pdf pg. 32 https://www.icon-art.info/bibliogr_item.php?id=21 Domed Mosaic Ceiling , 547 AD Basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna, Italy. https://art.kunstmatrix.com/en/artwork/1882765/domed-mosaic-ceiling Ravenna. Mosaic in Baptistery of Neon. 5th century. Baptism of Jesus. Italy. https://www.alamy.com/ravenna-mosaic-in-baptistery-of-neon-5th-century-baptism-of-jesus-italy-image238557621.html https://www.flickr.com/photos/35409814@N00/11904625526/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/60661697@N07/17795977821/in/pool-1307009@N23/ -------------------------------------------- (River “god”? to left?) Arian Baptistery in Ravenna. Late 5th-early 6th c. AD. Mosaics in the dome https://www.icon-art.info/bibliogr_item.php?id=21 https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobbex/52646912056 https://flickr.com/photos/27305838@N04/15953924945/in/pool-2740017@N23/ ------------------------------------------------------ (Dark skin) 526-530 AD.Christ - Church of Santi Cosma e Damiano. Rome. https://vk.com/photo-35220730_313024499 https://israelandpalestinediary.blogspot.com/2015/12/was-jesus-palestinian-or-was-jesus.html ------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Christ flanked by Saints Peter and Paul · Catacombs of Saints Peter and Marcellinus, Rome, 4th century AD. https://my-passion.blog/2018/11/29/oldest-paintings-of-jesus/ Christ between Saint Peter and Saint Paul, above four martyrs worshiping the Mystic Lamb, 4th century (dome of the Catacombs of the Saints Peter and Marcellinus, Rome). https://arsartisticadventureofmankind.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/early-western-christian-art-during-the-iiird-ivth-and-vth-centuries-the-painting-of-the-catacombs/ ----------------------------------- Year of Object(s) Creation: 550 A.D. (approximate) Provenience Nation: Cyprus Provenience Location: Church of the Panayia Kanakaria Year Removed from Findspot: 1975 (approximate) https://research.cgu.edu/cultural-property-disputes-resource/cpdr/church-of-panagia-kanakaria-mosaics/ ---------------------------------- **Sources:** 1. In early Christian art the nimbus certainly is not found on images of God and celestial beings, but only on figures borrowed from profane art, and in Biblical scenes; 2. Hence it follows that the Bible furnished no example for the bestowal of a halo upon individual saintly personages. 3. As a matter of fact the nimbus, as an inheritance from ancient art tradition, was readily adopted and ultimately found the widest application because the symbol of light for all divine, saintly ideals is offered by nature and not infrequently used in Scripture. 4. The nimbus of early Christian art manifests only in a few particular drawings, its relationship with that of late antiquity. 5. In the first half of the fourth century, Christ received a nimbus only when portrayed seated upon a throne or in an exalted and princely character, but it had already been used since Constantine, in pictures of the emperors, and was emblematic, not so much of divine as of human dignity and greatness. 6. The number of personages who were given a halo increased rapidly, until towards the end of the sixth century the use of symbols in the Christian Church became as general as it had formerly been in pagan art. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11080b.htm ---------------------------------------------------- 1. NIMB (from Latin nimbus – cloud) – a glow around the head – as a sign of divine power, originated in the East. In Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, deities were depicted with a solar disk above their heads or with rays coming out of their heads. Later in Ancient Greece, the god of light Apollo and the god of the sun Helios began to be depicted with a radiant halo around their heads. The pagan halo is a symbol of the shining sun, divine flame, sacred light. 2. THE IDEA OF THE CHRISTIAN HALO was formed only in the 4th century. In Christianity, the halo is a symbol of participation in the essence of the One God. Since "God is light" (1 John 1:5), the halo is part of this light. The halo reveals the essence of Christ as the Heavenly Light revealed to the world. On the vault of the cubicle of Leo in the catacombs of Commodilla is one of the first images of Christ with a halo around his head. This fresco dates back to the second half of the 4th century. Jesus Christ. Second half of the 4th century. Fresco. Catacombs of Commodilla, Rome. 3. In the iconography of Angels, the halo becomes a mandatory attribute in the 5th century. 4. The nimbuses of the Apostles and saints appear only at the end of the 5th century. 5. A cross-shaped (cross-shaped) halo is a round halo with a cross placed inside it, which symbolizes the atoning sacrifice of Christ in the name of saving humanity. Among the earliest known images of Christ with a cross-shaped halo is a bas-relief from a sarcophagus of Constantinople origin from the beginning of the 5th century, depicting Christ with the apostles. The relief is poorly preserved, but traces of the crossbars of the cross can be seen on the halo. 6. By 6 th. c. AD the cross on the nimbus of Christ becomes almost mandatory. Ovchinnikov A. N. Symbolism of Christian Art. – M.: Rodnik, 1999. Pp. 10–19. https://dzen.ru/a/ZXl5T1_d5C72wmOv -------------------------------

I came across a blog post by a platonist in which he critiqued the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil given God's omnibenevolence and omniscience, saying: > Augustine's claim that evil is not a substance but a privation of good > was designed to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil's > existence. However, this position does not escape the more profound > paradox that God created beings who could lapse into privation and did > so with full foreknowledge of the consequences. The free will defense > only complicates the issue: if God grants free will knowing it will be > misused, the divine act of creation becomes entangled with the > emergence of moral evil. Moreover, if the will can remain oriented > toward the good only through divine grace, then free will itself seems > limited or dependent in a way that undermines its explanatory value. > The paradox intensifies when considering the role of Satan, whose > rebellious agency destabilizes the coherence of monotheistic > sovereignty. If Satan undermines God's purposes, divine omnipotence is > weakened; if Satan acts only with God's permission, then divine > benevolence is compromised. Either interpretation raises problems that > the privation theory cannot reconcile. These tensions reveal a more > profound structural paradox at the heart of Christian theodicy. In a > cosmos created ex nihilo by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, > nothing can exist independently of divine will or permission. > Consequently, all conditions that make evil possible, creaturely > freedom, vulnerability, corruptibility, and the existence of tempters > are ultimately grounded in God's creative act. Christian theodicy thus > attempts to balance divine goodness with divine sovereignty, but the > metaphysical architecture of monotheism forces a contradiction: either > God is powerful enough to prevent evil but chooses not to, or God > wills a world in which evil inevitably emerges, making evil indirectly > a by-product of divine creative intention. Augustine's partial > incorporation of Neoplatonic ideas helps articulate evil as a > metaphysical deficiency. Yet, even this philosophical refinement > cannot compensate for a more fundamental issue: Christian theology's > consolidation of causality in a single omnipotent agent ensures that > God remains tied to every aspect of cosmic order and disorder alike. > The result is a system in which the existence of evil perpetually > threatens either the goodness or the sovereignty of the creator, and > the tradition's attempts to resolve this tension never entirely > eliminate its underlying contradictions. > > (Flavius Julianus Mithridaticus, *Evil as Shadow, Heroism as Form: An > Indo-European View of Theodicy*, The New Platonic Academy) To restate his critiques: - God created people with the ability to be evil and knew of the consequences because of his foreknowledge. He created people knowing they would use their free will for evil which makes evil a by-product of his creation. This seems to bring his omnibenevolence into question. If I created a simulation with the parameters allowing for characters in it to be evil then I'm responsible, at least partly, for evil existing in my simulation. - If Satan can thwart God's purposes [such as his desire for everyone to have faith in Him and live according to His moral law (my comment)], then it calls his omnipotence into question. And if Satan only acts with God's permission, then God's benevolence is compromised. If someone is stealing something or hurting someone and I allow it to happen when I have the ability to stop it, then I'm being evil. In Catholicism, being able to prevent or stop something evil and not doing it is the sin of omission. A more accurate allegory with regards to Satan's acts that are permitted by God: I'm standing in the way of an assailant and their victim and when the assailant asks if they can attack their victim, I nod and step aside, allowing the evil to take place. Maybe my allegory is off, but I'm having difficulty seeing his omnibenevolence given this. My allegory somewhat reminded me of the book of Job where Job, who is a holy man has his life and loved ones destroyed after God gives Satan permission and if I'm remembering correctly, God didn't give Job an explanation and instead told him about the world He created. - In a world created by God as understood by Christians, nothing exists apart from God's will or permission. Either God is powerful enough to prevent evil, but chooses not to or God willed a world where evil would inevitably exist, making evil a by-product of his creation. He presents a sound critique of the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil and it completely stumped me so if you have any thoughts, please share them because I don't know how to rebut him. Thank you in advance to anyone who tries to tackle this.

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named [*A Stronger Faith*](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/) , which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get in our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What are the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church's interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually understood to be implied?** **Are there significant differences and/or similarities between both churches as to how they interpret John 17:3?**

I am not asking the difference between these, I think I have an okay grasp on that. I am generally asking, what truly does the difference of who Christ was, and the specific way he was divine, make to the individual? I grew up "protestant" *(which should be obvious based on my question)* but specifically, I grew up LDS, and because I grew up LDS, I don't think I have ever seen a Catholic church, let alone a Orthodox Church. *(And no, I am no longer mormon, and I haven't been mormon since like the age of 11. I disagree with pretty much everything.)* And so I have been kind of dabbling in Orthodoxy in my own spare time. And generally, I think I have a very surface level seperation of the differences between the four Orthodox, Antiochene is Assyrian, Miaphysite is Oriental Orthodox, and Chalcedonian is Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. But just to be sure I know the definitions, 1. Antiochene is like, two distinct natures which are seperate until union? 2. Miaphysite is unified divine and human? 3. Chalcedonian is both natures in one at the same time? But what does this difference really make in the interpretation of the ecumenical councils, and the general bible?

My research has thus far turned up only one (seemingly small) detail: The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches believe that **Mary died a regular, albeit peaceful earthly death** and shortly thereafter her body was glorified and taken up into heaven. This is the Dormition of Mary; she died and was taken up. Roman Catholicism emphasizes that Mary was taken bodily into heaven **without definitively saying whether she died first** and Roman Catholics are free to believe either that she died or did not. This is the Assumption of Mary; she may or may not have died prior to being taken up. Both traditions are based upon extra biblical writings and tradition with no direct basis in Scripture, both traditions held to the Dormition view until late in the middle ages, and both still ultimately affirm that Mary was taken bodily into heaven. Is this really the only difference between the two; that the East insists that Mary died and that the West is unsure whether she died? What are the theological and (if any) practical implications of this difference?

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

**Are there examples of Marian Apparitions to Orthodox faithful, Protestants or non-christians?** After reading this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/106340/25495) (**Best arguments against Marian apparitions?**), it got me wondering if there are examples of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, appearing to the Orthodox, Protestants (or other denominations) or non-christians? I am desiring an answer that has examples of all three fields if possible.

Although the Eastern Orthodox Church does not maintain inherited guilt, as does the Roman Catholic Church, it does maintain that mankind bears the consequences of Adam’s sin, and that those consequences involve physical corruption and death. But does the Orthodox Church also maintain that man’s tendency to sin is worse post‐Fall than pre‐Fall, being inherited from Adam? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that humans inherited an inward tendency to sin (sin nature) from Adam that Adam himself acquired only after the Fall? Or would the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that man’s inherent tendency to sin is roughly the same as that of Adam and Eve’s?