AboutAlex Anatole Expertise I can answer questions about Eastern Orthodox Church history, theology, liturgics, iconography, and Eastern Orthodoxy`s relationship to other Christian and non-Christian religions.
Experience I have been an Eastern Orthodox christian since 1953, and since the age of 20 have devoted myself to Orthodox studies and aplogetics.
Organizations St Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral, Diocese of the South, Orthodox Church in America.
Publications The Dawn (Diocesan newspaper)
The Dallas Morning News (guest columnist, religion section)
Expert: Alex Anatole Date: 4/15/2007 Subject: Messianic Judaism
Question As an Orthodox Christian I have been taught that the Orthodox church was the first or original christian church. After speaking to many Messianic Jews, they too believe that they are the first christians. Further, they believe our church has been heavily influenced by paganism, while they stayed true to the original christian teachings.
Can you please share some information with me in regard to this issue? How can I support the Orthodox side of the issue?
Answer Steve,
If you have not done so already, please read the book by Timothy Ware called THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.
Both the history and the doctrine of Orthodoxy can be easily traced in a very straight line right back to the Apostles.
Can these so-called "Messianic Jews' do the same?
As for the "paganization of the Church, consider this:
Any student of Church history knows that the early centuries were hardly tranquil. Every time a new doctrine was introduced there was blood in the streets - and I do NOT mean FIGURATIVELY!
When Arius began to preach that the Son was a creature, a being not of the same Nature as the Father, angry sermons were preached. Bands of thugs supporting one side or the other wandered the streets chanting doggerel verse in support of their party. Bishops were deposed by their political and theological opponents. Angry letters flew back and forth. And, finally, a great Council was convened in 325 AD in the town of Nicea to settle the dispute.
The same evidence of social trauma accompanied every heresy recorded in the history of the Church.
Nestorianism, Montanism, Donatism, Monotheletism, Monophysitism were ALL marked by anger, dispute, civil unrest, and social upheaval.
When the Emperor Leo III ordered his troops to pull the icons off the walls of Christian temples in Constantinople his soldiers were attacked - mostly by the women! - and some of the troops were killed on the spot! There was literally blood in the streets. That controversy lasted some 200 years and left a blood trail that left no part of Byzantine society unmarked. Even after the 7th Ecumenical council, Nicea II, 787 AD, settled the issue, the iconoclasts would not immediately give up.
But of late I have been thinking about a list of doctrines which, though Protestants claim they were "invented" late in the life of the Church, have no history of social upheaval. YET THEY SHOULD HAVE!
Consider the following:
1) The True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
2) The hierarchical structure of the ordained Clergy.
3) The Baptism, Chrismation, and Communion of infants.
4) Prayers for the departed.
5) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
6) Monasticism.
7) The Canon of Scripture - especially the Septuagint, containing the so called "Apocrypha."
8) The celebration of Pascha (Easter,) and the Nativity of Christ (Christmas.)
9) The celebration of liturgical feasts not even mentioned in the Scriptures such as the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Dormition of the Theotokos, the Presentation of the Theotokos in the Temple.
10) The very development of structured liturgical worship.
If any of these are innovations, contrary to the belief, doctrine, and practice of the 1st century Church, they should have caused a violent reaction! Someone somewhere ought to have stood up and objected, loudly! There should have been some uproar!
Am I reading the wrong histories?
Is it really possible such major "heresies," such "paganizations" of "pure 1st century Christianity" could have been introduced so quietly, so effectively, and so universally during the same era which saw saw such volcanic strife over other doctrines?
Could the Bishops who fought tooth and nail over the Deity of Christ do a quiet flip-flop on the question of His True presence in the Eucharist?
