OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 11:48:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Family Tree of Abrahamic Faiths/Religions according to Orthodox (Need Help)  (Read 18039 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #90 on: December 07, 2012, 03:35:05 PM »

don't the Karaites consider themselves to be the descendants of the Sadducees? Or is this just something somebody told me due to certain similarities in their beliefs?

There are some similarities (both groups believe in Torah Only) however Karaites emerged several hundreds of years after Sadducees had disappeared. There is no direct connection.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 03:37:55 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Eastern Mind
Hi! I'm Olaf and I like warm hugs!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Hopeful
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 713



« Reply #91 on: December 07, 2012, 03:51:37 PM »

I would add Yezidi to the tree, although it's so obscure I doubt anyone has really heard of it.
Might as well add Zoroastrianiam while you're at it.

Well, I just added them because they do, at least, believe in the Abrahamic God, even if most of their worship centers around the peacock "angel" Melek Taus.
Logged

"ALL THE GODS OF THE HINDUS ARE DEMONS HAHAHAHAHA!!"
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #92 on: December 07, 2012, 04:05:05 PM »

I would add Yezidi to the tree, although it's so obscure I doubt anyone has really heard of it.
Might as well add Zoroastrianiam while you're at it.

Well, I just added them because they do, at least, believe in the Abrahamic God, even if most of their worship centers around the peacock "angel" Melek Taus.
According to 2nd Chronicles 36:23:

“Thus says Cyrus, king of Persia: ‘All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD, the God of heaven, has given to me, and he has also charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever, therefore, among you belongs to any part of his people, let him go up, and may his God be with him!’”

Cyrus the Great was most likely a Zoroastrian, and yet according to the text above the author of Chronicles also saw him as someone who believed in the God of heaven, the God of Moses. One possibility was that the author thought that Cyrus was Jewish; but there is no evidence that he was Jewish. Another possibility, which I consider to be much more likely, was that the author viewed Cyrus's God (Ahura Mazda) to really be the Jewish God, though perhaps the Zoroastrians were off a little in their theology and so forth.

In Isaiah 45, Cyrus is called God's "anointed', or "moshiach" ("messiah"), partly because of Cyrus aiding the Jewish return to Jerusalem and rebuilding the Temple.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 04:29:20 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,559



WWW
« Reply #93 on: December 31, 2012, 08:55:08 PM »

I would add Yezidi to the tree, although it's so obscure I doubt anyone has really heard of it.
Might as well add Zoroastrianiam while you're at it.

Well, I just added them because they do, at least, believe in the Abrahamic God, even if most of their worship centers around the peacock "angel" Melek Taus.
According to 2nd Chronicles 36:23:

“Thus says Cyrus, king of Persia: ‘All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD, the God of heaven, has given to me, and he has also charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever, therefore, among you belongs to any part of his people, let him go up, and may his God be with him!’”

Cyrus the Great was most likely a Zoroastrian, and yet according to the text above the author of Chronicles also saw him as someone who believed in the God of heaven, the God of Moses. One possibility was that the author thought that Cyrus was Jewish; but there is no evidence that he was Jewish. Another possibility, which I consider to be much more likely, was that the author viewed Cyrus's God (Ahura Mazda) to really be the Jewish God, though perhaps the Zoroastrians were off a little in their theology and so forth.
Jetavan,

I think this is an interesting issue or problem you bring up. There is also a part in the Old Testament where it describes Pharaoh the Lame talking about Israel's God with reverence before the Pharaoh defeated and killed King Josiah. Normally, one would not expect this, because the Egyptians believed in a multiplicity of gods, none of which were named Jehovah/Yahweh. Not to mention the fact that the pharaoh in Moses' time was against Moses' God.

(The fact that Cyrus was called anointed, though, doesn't mean he believed in God though, because Nebechudnezzar was called that too, and the idea was that God chose (ie anointed) him for a mission, not that the person believed.)

Nonetheless, I am not sure the Zoroastrians followed the Abrahamic God, just because they were monotheists: this could have been the Chronicler's own interpretation. Their monotheism could have come from a source independent of Abraham, I think.

Another point: I think there is a mention that the Israelites' neighbors thought Israel's god was punishing them. I could be wrong about that. But being polytheists, they could have thought Israel's god was real, they just didn't focus on him. After all, among Israelites, there was occasional polytheism that included worship to Jehovah along with Baal and idol worship. That being he case, Cyrus or others could have acknowledged Jehovah, without actually focusing on him in an Abrahamic and monotheist way.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2012, 09:01:09 PM by rakovsky » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,752


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #94 on: December 31, 2012, 11:28:59 PM »

Interesting that every group on your chart except for Oriental Orthodox Christianity has groups breaking away from it.

Don't start that crap again.

Quote
From an OO perspective, it would be very easy to produce a chart showing how all groups which break away from us end up breaking into pieces themselves.

You mean how there is no uniformity in the OO Churches and how most of them have varying beliefs amongst each other?--even if they are formally considered together.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #95 on: December 31, 2012, 11:32:22 PM »

Interesting that every group on your chart except for Oriental Orthodox Christianity has groups breaking away from it.

Don't start that crap again.

Again? That post was from 2009...
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,622



« Reply #96 on: December 31, 2012, 11:33:28 PM »

Quote
From an OO perspective, it would be very easy to produce a chart showing how all groups which break away from us end up breaking into pieces themselves.
You mean how there is no uniformity in the OO Churches and how most of them have varying beliefs amongst each other?--even if they are formally considered together.
You mean they're just like the EO?
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,622



« Reply #97 on: December 31, 2012, 11:35:24 PM »

Again? That post was from 2009...

You know, this is the only forum I've been on where there are no rules (as far as I'm aware) against resurrecting old threads.

And almost every day on here I'm reminded why they do. laugh
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,273


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #98 on: December 31, 2012, 11:44:08 PM »

Interesting that every group on your chart except for Oriental Orthodox Christianity has groups breaking away from it.

From an OO perspective, it would be very easy to produce a chart showing how all groups which break away from us end up breaking into pieces themselves.

Can understand why that nice, though somewhat strict, Ethiopian in Melbourne said to me, "Only the Oriental Orthodox are Christian."

Was pleased nonetheless to hear less strict views when this one wasn't about though Cool

Exactly.  These charts pretty much give "ah ha's" to those it works for.  Ebionites were not even included.  Roman Catholics would stick themselves on the "main line".

Plus I could make a chart showing where "Orthodoxy" changed, and make marks from that.  Old believers would show how everything came off of them and how modern Orthodoxy "broke tradition" from the way of old belief.

Sorry, charts are just kind of loaded/propaganda.

Basically I look at them like a teacher who walks in on a room of 1st graders all yelling "nanny nanny boo boo, I was here first".   Except, there are 20 kids, all that have history that proves it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2012, 11:49:50 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,622



« Reply #99 on: December 31, 2012, 11:49:13 PM »

Exactly.  These charts pretty much give "ah ha's" to those it works for.  Ebionites were not even included.  Roman Catholics would stick themselves on the "main line".

Plus I could make a chart showing where "Orthodoxy" changed, and make marks from that.  Old believers would show how everything came off of them and how modern Orthodoxy "broke tradition" from the way of old belief.

Sorry, charts are just kind of loaded/propaganda.
I think the chart was meant to show a traditional EO perspective - not an 'objective' perspective. Look at the title of the thread - "according to Orthodox."
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,726


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #100 on: December 31, 2012, 11:54:11 PM »

Interesting that every group on your chart except for Oriental Orthodox Christianity has groups breaking away from it.

Don't start that crap again.

Quote
From an OO perspective, it would be very easy to produce a chart showing how all groups which break away from us end up breaking into pieces themselves.

You mean how there is no uniformity in the OO Churches and how most of them have varying beliefs amongst each other?--even if they are formally considered together.

We are uniform in our basic faith, but diverse in our liturgy and other practices.  This diversity is something the EO's used to have until relatively recently, if I understand correctly.  Lockstep uniformity did not exist in early Christianity, and I am rather glad that the OO's have not given in to that trend, which had its origins in the West.  A lot of EO's here have expressed a desire to one day see local liturgical traditions revived, and I hope that happens.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #101 on: January 01, 2013, 10:14:56 AM »

You know, this is the only forum I've been on where there are no rules (as far as I'm aware) against resurrecting old threads.

You are not mistaken.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #102 on: January 01, 2013, 10:24:59 AM »

Interesting that every group on your chart except for Oriental Orthodox Christianity has groups breaking away from it.

Don't start that crap again.

Quote
From an OO perspective, it would be very easy to produce a chart showing how all groups which break away from us end up breaking into pieces themselves.

You mean how there is no uniformity in the OO Churches and how most of them have varying beliefs amongst each other?--even if they are formally considered together.

Care to substantiate these claims?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #103 on: July 20, 2013, 05:43:46 PM »

I would add Yezidi to the tree, although it's so obscure I doubt anyone has really heard of it.
Might as well add Zoroastrianiam while you're at it.

Zoroastrians don't believe in the God of Abraham. True they believe in one deity, but not the God of Abraham. They are a clearly distinct monotheistic religion outside of the Abrahamic tradition. The Yezidi, as best as I'm aware, broke away from the the Zoroastrians (whilst adding some Mithraic beliefs) as much as the followers Zurvan.

You know, this is the only forum I've been on where there are no rules (as far as I'm aware) against resurrecting old threads.

You are not mistaken.

Which is fabulous as it means one can always come back to a conversation should one think of something to say a while later?  Cool
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,559



WWW
« Reply #104 on: February 20, 2014, 05:27:35 PM »

Going down the Tree.
Once you accept Christianity, you have to ask whether you are going to recognize Messianic Christianity or only what we consider the Church.

The first main problem with the Messianics is that they are separate from the Orthodox Church. That is, we are not in communion.

A second problem is that typically they follow Protestant theology. This is not always the case as there are "Hebrew Catholics". But there are few who follow Orthodox theology, although a small number. There is a modern "Nazarene" group, one of whose members was here.

The third main problem is the issue of whether Jewish Christians should follow a different set of rituals and rules than other Christians. One may tend to see it as problematic in that we are to be one in Christ. It's true that women are supposed to wear veils and stand on opposite sides of the church (especially in conservative ones), and we have gender based monasteries. Women cannot be priests, etc. But unlike sex-based divisions, today we have come to reject distinctions based on race. In terms of spirituality, worth, and salvation, Christians are Abraham's sons, for Paul. To deny this would go against the Council of Jerusalem which was the apostle James' decision.

I think the New Testament does not say Jews should or should not practice different rituals than other Christians. So for me it is a small question. However, Christ did give an example of disregarding Mosaic rituals like the idea of ritual cleanliness, which went against touching the sick. In Peter's vision God told him that eating anything was not unclean. I think Paul's idea of disregarding the ritual rules, putting grace instead of law, was not something he made up but what he learned from the other apostles.

So I have to go with the Church based on the three reasons above,
although it might be helpful if someone could show me something more on point from the Old Testament or gospels showing that Jewish Christians should no longer do separate rituals.

As for the Arians and Nestorians, I wonder if the differences were really just semantic.

As for the Oriental Orthodox,
I have trouble seeing whether the issue of Christ's natures rises to the level of heresy if both the Church and the OOs see Him as human and divine.

The Church's Chalcedon Council made a normal statement that Christ is in two natures or sets of properties and the OOs misinterpreted that two mean by extension that he is in two people. However if the 5th Council practically anathematized(?) Cyril's idea that Christ's nature was of two natures, how can I accept either the EO or OO positions? Would that make me a Chalcedonian nonConstantinople II-ian? At least I go farther with the EOs (the 4th Council). Granted, the 5th Council banned "saying" one nature, not thinking it.

Moving along, assuming there is such a thing as apostolic succession, what about the Roman Catholics?

I have a hard time accepting that the guilt of personal sin is passed down. Also I am pretty skeptical about purgatory.

What about a nondenominational vagante group? Couldn't I find one that actually has the right theology, perfect ideas and customs (theoretically speaking), but just doesn't happen to be in apostolic succession?

I guess. Certainly the one with it is better.
Logged
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 290


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #105 on: February 20, 2014, 07:30:03 PM »

Mormonism is not a break-off from Protestantism. I'd say its beginnings are similar to Islam. A guy came along and created his own religion from a mix of Protestantism, Arianism, and paganism. It's its own religion.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #106 on: February 20, 2014, 07:33:35 PM »

Mormonism is not a break-off from Protestantism. I'd say its beginnings are similar to Islam. A guy came along and created his own religion from a mix of Protestantism, Arianism, and paganism....
...and Kabbalah.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,085


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #107 on: February 20, 2014, 08:03:47 PM »

Mormonism is not a break-off from Protestantism. I'd say its beginnings are similar to Islam. A guy came along and created his own religion from a mix of Protestantism, Arianism, and paganism. It's its own religion.

Mormonism is construed as part of the Restorationist movements of the mid 19th century, including Campbellism.   One might go so far as to include Adventism and its offshoots (SDA, JWs, etc) in this milieu. 
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #108 on: February 20, 2014, 08:11:31 PM »

Mormonism is not a break-off from Protestantism. I'd say its beginnings are similar to Islam. A guy came along and created his own religion from a mix of Protestantism, Arianism, and paganism. It's its own religion.

Mormonism is construed as part of the Restorationist movements of the mid 19th century, including Campbellism.   One might go so far as to include Adventism and its offshoots (SDA, JWs, etc) in this milieu. 
True, but Mormon theology is far more 'radical' than that of Adventism or even the JWs.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,085


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #109 on: February 20, 2014, 08:15:43 PM »

Mormonism is not a break-off from Protestantism. I'd say its beginnings are similar to Islam. A guy came along and created his own religion from a mix of Protestantism, Arianism, and paganism. It's its own religion.

Mormonism is construed as part of the Restorationist movements of the mid 19th century, including Campbellism.   One might go so far as to include Adventism and its offshoots (SDA, JWs, etc) in this milieu. 
True, but Mormon theology is far more 'radical' than that of Adventism or even the JWs.

No debate there.  Just saying that he got his idea of Restoring the church from the myriad groups around him who were trying to do the same in western NY.  Then he joined his penchant for treasure hunting and found some golden plates that told him how to do it.  Then he later came up with an apostolic visitation to confer apostolic succession on himself and made a nice little story out of it all. 

But I think it took Brigham Young and his doctrine of Eternal Progression to really take it to the next level. 

Ironically he came close - what he really describes is theosis with the essence, rather than the energies, of God.  I wonder if he had any clue about that or if he got that close to actual truth by taking a stab in the dark. 
Logged
Incognito777
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: N/A
Posts: 310


« Reply #110 on: February 21, 2014, 02:25:47 AM »

88Devin12,

We now know through archaeology that monotheism is older than polytheism. Sixteen thousand clay tablets dated to the third millennium B.C. were found in Ebla Syria. They are known as the Ebla tablets. Not only do these tablets speak of one supreme God, but they also make reference to Adam, Eve, and Noah. The Ebla tablets contain the old known creation account outside the Bible, and as I said, speak of one God. The Ebla tablets pre-date the Babylonian account by 600 years. The creation account in the Ebla tablets is similar to the creation account in Genesis. The tablets also speak of creation from nothing.

For more information with listed references, see, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," (page 208), by Norman Geisler.
Logged
Tags: Rasta Rastafarian Rastafarianism Church history 
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.1 seconds with 49 queries.