Getting back to the original question, having read some of the posts and glanced at others, may I say three things?
1) I am forming an ever-strengthening impression that the Orthodox Church no more has its roots in the first century early church than we Baptists do, but rather that the characteristics of Orthodox church order and theologising developed in the second century, finding their first hints in Ignatius, and developed through Irenæus and Justyn etc as writers and then councils contributed down to the 4th century and beyond. I find no problem with the fact that Baptist churches, historically, began in the early 17th century, as it is the theology and practice of the early church we aim to recover, not historical continuity of an organisation. Since you assign enormous importance to historical continuity, and we accord it none, we are often discussing different matters when we think we are debating the same issue. Personally, I have no problem believing that your organisation does indeed stretch back unbrokenly to some churches founded by some apostles in the first century; it is not something you need to belabour with us, for we (or at least, I) readily concede it. The difference is that you see it as important in establishing where true Christian congregations are, and we don't.
2) The posts by Cleopas and Rosehip leave me with little or nothing to add up to this point. They have expressed it well.
3) Sadly, some posts seem to be written in a disrespectful, even sarcastic, style, which fails to commend the argument they are trying to persuade us of.