Small Orthodox corner

[AnthoniusII]

Thats BS.

The Romans didn't need greek to talk with the latin cities, obviously because of LATIN, nor with Etruscans, Sabinians, Umbrians, Samnites, Lucanians and Bruttians all italic people, which spoke italic languages, close related to Latin. They don't need greek to communicate with their Allies.

And their greek allies in Italy? Neglectable as they barely could stand on their own against Samnites, Lucanians and even Bruttians. So no need because of this few cities too.

And i don't accept some random YT videos from some greek Ultranationalists. They are scientific BS.

But go on with your rambling against the serious scientific facts about roman history of the absolute majority of serious historians.

Before you write like a history expert DID YOU BOTHER TO WATCH the entire line of videos made by REAL HISTORY PROFESORS ? Fisrt educate your self then write.
I am "friend" in Facebook with mr Timothy Dawson , Mr R. D'AMMATO and ilustrators fort history books you may read like G.Rava and mr Shumate. Also I happened to have in CBUR Project real historians in our group that today teach History and even publish in history magasines. Also I have knowlege of the Hellenistic Greco-Roman dialect that is still in use in Orthodox titles and texts.
I sugest you educate first , write later.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Then where are the scientific publications, which are proving your claim? Magazines , Dissertations...

I have made an Matura with A in Latin and B in History.

[AnthoniusII]

Then where are the scientific publications, which are proving your claim? Magazines , Dissertations...

I have made an Matura with A in Latin and B in History.

THEN the names i mention are not unknown to you. What ever I do not know I ask the experts. I live 18 miles away from the Theollogical school of Thessaloniki's University and i have many friends that studied the Church Law. Also one of my friends is today a Bishop. Yoi know that the Roman medieval history (the one you may false call Byzantine) is directly connected with Church Law. The first proncipal of teh first Ecumenical Council says "Ecumene belogs To God and God has only One representative on Ecumene the Roman August (not Ceasar like you westerners call all emperors).
Since you are a historian please try to find a rare book Alfred Rabaud's Studies on the Byzantine History 1909. Many Faith issues are mentioned there with a very presice way. I would recoment you "Why Byzantium" by Mrs Helene_Ahrweiler that was the first woman the leaded the French Academy and she knows Latin better than you and me.... In such books you can find about not only the political and military history of the Medieval Roman Empire but also many info about the Faith issues and the disputes between east and west.

[basics]

That the bible says one must believe first to be baptized.

alhoon,

Indeed it never says anything other than believe or repent and then be baptised. But not to make things too difficult for you where in the Old Testament does it say that any of the saints accounted righteous before God were even baptised? Is the thief not in heaven as Jesus promised from the cross and yet he was not baptised? The Gospel is the trigger to salvation bringing about belief, repentance, regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit all done by God and then if the new believer wishes to declare his or her belief in Christ Jesus they ask for baptism. So please tell me where the lie is in that which is purely Biblical?

[AnthoniusII]

Then where are the scientific publications, which are proving your claim? Magazines , Dissertations...

I have made an Matura with A in Latin and B in History.

One more onfo. Pope today in His speach in Athens He mentioned that Gospel was originaly writen ONLY in Greek Language and then translated in other inferior languages the best they could do. But as Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

"Proven in every period of its development, the western European culture has tried to rid himself of the Greeks. This work is imbued with deep disappointment, because whatever we create, seemingly original and worthy of admiration, lose color and life in comparison with the Greek mode, came to resemble a cheap copy, a caricature.
So again and again soaked in a rage erupts hatred against the Greeks, against this small and arrogant nation, who had the nerve to call it barbaric whatever that had not been established in its territory ...
None of the recurrent enemies had the fortune to discover the hemlock, which could forever be rid of them. All poisons of envy, of hubris, hatred, have been insufficient to disturb the great beauty.
Thus, people continue to feel shame and fear of the Greeks. Of course, occasionally, someone appears to recognize intact truth, truth which teaches that the Greeks are the charioteers of any upcoming culture and almost always as the chariots and horses of the upcoming cultures is very low quality compared to the charioteer, who eventually work out driving his chariot into the abyss, which are beyond the Achilles 'Leap'”

That includes languages too. Now watch the videos in my previus posts, compare them with Pope's quote and the Friedrich Nietzsche's one and as Historian make yoru conclusions why the complicated meanings of teh Christian Faith can not be fully be understandable by those that do not know the Hellenistic Greek (including modern Greeks in their majority).
Another interesting video is this:

In some point you will hear the narator say "we could not understand what they say but one phrase we knew "God Bless us"....

[alhoon]

alhoon,

Indeed it never says anything other than believe or repent and then be baptised. But not to make things too difficult for you where in the Old Testament does it say that any of the saints accounted righteous before God were even baptised? Is the thief not in heaven as Jesus promised from the cross and yet he was not baptised? The Gospel is the trigger to salvation bringing about belief, repentance, regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit all done by God and then if the new believer wishes to declare his or her belief in Christ Jesus they ask for baptism. So please tell me where the lie is in that which is purely Biblical?

Nobody here (as far as I know) claimed that it is anyone that God that saves. What we said, is that you don't need to believe first in order to be baptized because that's how it works thanks to the Episcopal tradition. The Holy Spirit is passing to us through the ordained priests in an unbroken like since the Apostles.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Matthew writes of John baptizing people as a symbol of repentance and renewal, which is one reason he argued Jesus did not need to be baptized. Jesus insisted it is an important affirmation of righteousness. I think that’s why alot of Protestants are against baptizing babies. Baptism is a public affirmation of faith, as exemplified by Jesus, so it doesn’t make sense for someone who has no concept of the truth to be baptized. Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, not through ritual. For my part I was required to complete several weeks of tutored Biblical study as a kid in order to understand what it was I was affirming.

[Cookiegod]

Where to start... The "Kai su teknon" quote (given to us by Sueton) is not one that I'd have used to contrast with a "myth", given it's quite unlikely that anyone was there to hear it who'd also want it to be known. A better example would have been "Anerriphtho kybos" aka Alea iacta est, which, given that Caesar was quoting a greek play lost to us, was almost certainly uttered in Greek. Thing is you're correct that the Roman upper class in the Roman republic and early imperial period did have an admiration for Greeks that started with the upper class being tutored by slaves from Magna Graecia.

This however has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Roman official language for decrees, etc., which was Latin, or the language of the commoner, which was also Latin. Christianity spread through the lower classes first and the last Roman/Greek pagan holdouts were in the upper classes. So no, Greek did not have the role you give it, at least not in the west.

Even better is that in the east, the roles were reversed. If you were from noble stock, Latin was certainly a useful tool to have. And even after the collapse of the Western Roman half, Latin was kept as an, or rather even THE official language of the east for a long time.

Examples:
- Battlefield commands in the early Byzantine period were given in vulgar latin, you find those commands listed in emperor Maurikios' Strategikon
- Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis was impressive for many reasons, and one thing that was very new was that some of the parts were published in both Latin AND Greek. Before that they'd been exclusively Latin.

And finally we can look at what the commoner spoke in the Eastern half: And no, it was not exclusively Greek. You'll find Coptic as the descendant of Ancient Egyptian in Egypt, Aramaic and it's child, Syriac, in the levant to mention just a few. Another good example coming to my mind would be Isaurian, which has clear tracable roots to the Hittite and Luwian bronze age, and is attested as late as the 5th century AD. The Isaurians also managed to pose several Byzantine emperors.

And whilst yes, Greek was a "lingua franca" and at a certain point became THE church language, your ethnonationalist claim that you have to be a Greek (even though you do not speak the same Greek as they did) completely falls apart the second you notice that your claim is at complete odds with reality. If Greek had been such a poor uninclusive vehicle to transfer meaning (which I don't agree with you on), then most certainly people would have used a different language instead. Most early Christians did not have Greek as their first language.

This fact is referred to in the bible MULTIPLE times:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues

1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
[...]
28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels [...]

I could have brought more examples but I'll stop here. Clearly being multilingual was important especially in the eastern half of the empire, and that fact we see strongly reverberate in both early Christianity itself and in the bible.

I suggest that you actually talk to your facebook professor friends and ask them about this, or that you visit the university that's within 18 miles from you, and maybe read the bible instead of telling us how only you can read it.

Oh and one minor thing not relevant to the discussion your interlocutor got wrong: Geographical proximity doesn't necessarily mean linguistic proximity. In the case of Italy Latin was indeed somewhat related to the Oscan and Umbrian languages (all those languages had largely died out by the time Christianity came rolling, as Rome had colonized Italy rather thoroughly), but Etruscan was a language isolate and not even Indo-European. As a result I for instance would have no chance whatsoever at deciphering anything there whatsoever or guessing whether a word is a noun or a verb, and actual scholars are also having a hard time with it. As such Latin would be more closely related to the Celtic and even early Germanic languages much further north than to the very close Etruscan neighbour. A Latin speaker would have quickly picked up on similarities such as -s endings as the common Indoeuropean heritage and a great number of similar words. E.g. Khatuz (Early Germanic), Kattos (reconstructed early celtic), cattus (Latin) - all meaning cat of course.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Yes you are absolutely right, that Etruscan is not similar to latin or other indo-european languages.

I should have better said: As Rome started as etruscan colony the Romans certainly spoke enough etruscan words to communicate with etruscan cities and don't certainly need koine greek for this.

[AnthoniusII]

@Cookiegod
Since you know so much about military manuals and you still call Roman State of Middle Ages "Byzantine" (a term that passes to oblivion thanks to modern historians) , could you explain to us why August Heracleius replaced those orders with Hellenistic Greek before start his re-Romanisation of his army and despite the fact that he was living in Carthage before becomes an August?
Please inlight us.
EDIT: The POPE is a liar when TODAY he said that Gospel originaly writen in Greek (actually Hellenistic Greek that have beeen spoken from Spain to China and India as the language of trade and diplomacy and as a language of the Succesors states legacy). IS Pope a liar according to you YES OR NO?

[Lord Thesaurian]

The papacy is a fount of lies and blasphemies, so a pope lying wouldn’t be a radical idea.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

[Cookiegod]

@Cookiegod
Since you know so much about military manuals and you still call Roman State of Middle Ages "Byzantine" (a term that passes to oblivion thanks to modern historians) , could you explain to us why August Heracleius replaced those orders with Hellenistic Greek before start his re-Romanisation of his army and despite the fact that he was living in Carthage before becomes an August?
Please inlight us.
EDIT: The POPE is a liar when TODAY he said that Gospel originaly writen in Greek (actually Hellenistic Greek that have beeen spoken from Spain to China and India as the language of trade and diplomacy and as a language of the Succesors states legacy). IS Pope a liar according to you YES OR NO?

Is this seriously the best response you could come up with? Will you engage with any of the arguments provided to you or is it too hard? In that case, please consult any of your friends for assistance.

[Sir Adrian]

A selection of beautiful Christmas carols in various languages

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Alexander78]

@Sir Adrian

Very cool, thanks

[Abdülmecid I]

There are no better or worse languages. This is a scientifically unacceptable observation and there is not going to be a single academic endorsing. In terms of vocabulary, as a general rule, older languages have much fewer words than modern ones, which is reasonable, given how many new terms are invented every year. So, for example, ancient Greek (the Hellenistic and Byzantine literature) has around 250.000 lemmata, but its modern version must have around double that number. English is probably the richest in the word, as its spread means that it's very receptive and is continuously enriched with neologisms from different languages.

This however has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Roman official language for decrees, etc., which was Latin, or the language of the commoner, which was also Latin. Christianity spread through the lower classes first and the last Roman/Greek pagan holdouts were in the upper classes. So no, Greek did not have the role you give it, at least not in the west.

Good post, generally, but I'll have to disagree here. In the early stages, Christianity was indeed more prevalent in the lower strata, but that changed, once the emperors endorsed it as the official religion. This move sparked a huge wave of opportunistic conversions, while enforcement and cultural influence encouraged yet even more conversions. The last pagans in the old, Roman world belonged to rural and isolated communities, usually situated in mountainous terrain. The elite had already been christianised, in order not to lose its privileged social position and to be able to participate in and profit from the imperial administration.

[alhoon]

Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, not through ritual.

Faith and Works.

[alhoon]

@Cookiegod
Since you know so much about military manuals and you still call Roman State of Middle Ages "Byzantine" (a term that passes to oblivion thanks to modern historians) , could you explain to us why August Heracleius replaced those orders with Hellenistic Greek before start his re-Romanisation of his army and despite the fact that he was living in Carthage before becomes an August?
Please inlight us.

Because by the time of Heracleius we were an Empire of Greeks, strongly Hellenized. 300 years earlier, by the time of Constantine, it wasn't so.

[Sir Adrian]

Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, not through ritual.

Demons and the devil also believe in Christ. Are you implying they are also saved? Faith by itself is zero. Baptism is not an affirmation of faith, baptism is the affirmation of the desire to cast away the satanic and take God into your life. Baptism is a Sacrament established by Jesus through which you are conveyed the grace of God and entered into the body of the heavenly church. It is criminal to deny a person the grace of God based solely on age.

[AnthoniusII]

Is this seriously the best response you could come up with? Will you engage with any of the arguments provided to you or is it too hard? In that case, please consult any of your friends for assistance.

Because by the time of Heracleius we were an Empire of Greeks, strongly Hellenized. 300 years earlier, by the time of Constantine, it wasn't so.

Ahoon you are wrong. The Empire was never purely Greek.
But Hellenistic Greek was chosen first by Maurice (before his assasination) and then by Heracleius for practical reason. By the time Heracleius took the throne there was NO ARMY at all exapt few hundred of Germanic origin Officers that either gave their commands in German or in Latin. But Herecleius' army was an army of civilians. That ment that they were Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, Africans, Slavs, Cappadokians, Isaurians, Armenians , Georgians etc. What they all had in common was their abillity to know two languages despoite the fact that they were from the lowest levels of societies , their native language and the hellenistic Greek because many of them needed a language to trade or communicate in every corner of the empire and beyond its borders.
So Heracleius cleverly thought that is easier to teach greek to German Officers than to teach german to thousands of soldiers of differnt enthic background. That lasted an entire year. His army was trained in Tarsos for 13 mpnths before he would march against Sassanids! The confusion :
In the west Europe they take as granded that Renessanse was the spark that identified the meaning of "Nation". In fact though from thousands of years earlier every ethnic group had self knowlege of its national identity (see the list of taxes for the PERSIAN kINGS). So in the Roman Empire devide or not anyone had the knowlege in with ethnic group he belinged into ..So The Roman Empire was never either Roman (in the strict sense of the word) nore Greek. The fact that Greeks were the LAST ROMAN CITIZENS is another story though. Armenians knew that they were ARMENIANS, Cappadikians kniew that they were capppadokians and so on. The 2 factors that conected that multi national society was the Faith and the language. So imagine a Viking trader that reaches Danube in an area that most of people are Bulgarian in origin. He wishes to thade. The first language he will hear in the market will be Hellenistic Greek the same he listened in the market in Cherson (modern Crimea) . He returns to his homeland and the rest asked him "where did you trade these goods " the natural answer was "in the lands that speak Greek". No matter if the trader was Greek, Chazar, Bulgarian all traders spoke the same language. When a German King called Emperor Komnenos "King of the Greeks" there was a war threat for that insult. Another misunderstanding that also has to do with Faith is the title of each ruler. Romans used three titles to define "Emperor" August, Vasileus, Autocrator. Ceasar/Caiser/Char was an inferior title given to ruler Romans though as barbarians. I believe that you can read Greek.
Exibit 1:
Leonis Imperatoris Tactica by August Leon VI.

Exibit 2 : How he calls his state:

Finally Ultimimus Romanorum fell in 6961 Anno Mundi :
His signature:

Because the kletter may be too small :
The signature says:
Constantine by the grace Of God , faithfull Vasileus and Aytocrator of the Romans Palaeologos.
So...how the state was greek ?
In the 1st and third picture both Emperor refer to God. That has its routes to the 1st Ecumenical Counsil "There is ONE GOD and Ecumeni belongs To Him and He has One representative of Ecumeni the Roman August".
Some Historical and RELIGION MYTHS is time to pass to ablivion...
EDIT: In the first picture when Leon "describes" God is the route of the Shism in 1054. O am too lazy to translate it to our friends so be kind and translate ot to them your self.
In my life o like fairy tales but i hate historical myths. Western Europeans despertly try for centuries to convince themeselvs that they inheritaded the Roman glory. But according to Caracalla's degree more "Roman rights" has a modern native for Lybia because his ancestors DID recieved the Roman citizenship than the Angles,Franks, Lombards, Saxons, Allamani that are all german tribes that never became full Roman citizens. In Fact the renessance term "nation" tried to separate the german tribes from one to the other and not define the meaning of Ethnos.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Demons and the devil also believe in Christ. Are you implying they are also saved? Faith by itself is zero. Baptism is not an affirmation of faith, baptism is the affirmation of the desire to cast away the satanic and take God into your life. Baptism is a Sacrament established by Jesus through which you are conveyed the grace of God and entered into the body of the heavenly church. It is criminal to deny a person the grace of God based solely on age.

I wasn’t aware demons love Jesus and seek to abide by his commandments. As for the nature of salvation, it’s clear cut. I should advise that if we’re not talking about Scripture we’re talking past each other.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

As Paul told the jailer, salvation comes through faith in Jesus, and baptism is a subsequent public affirmation of commitment to righteousness, as Jesus told John when the latter argued Jesus had no need of it. Jesus had nothing Satanic to cast away, nor a need to invite himself into his life.