The Birth of the State Religion of the Ecumenical Councils

The Birth of the State Religion of the Ecumenical Councils

 By: Evangelos Dim. Kepenes (01/24/2018)

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John, 8:31-32)

The formed Byzantine, "patristic" Christianity differs in its structure from the primitive Church founded by Jesus and His Apostles, which is the fulfillment of biblical Judaism.

The Hellenization of Christianity and the Christianization of Hellenism were facilitated by the historical Hellenization of the peoples of the East and were achieved through the mixture of predominantly Platonic thought and monotheistic Judeo-Christianity. The primary agent was the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo, who equated the Hebrew Scriptures with Platonism. While disseminating Greek philosophical positions, he held the deceptive view that he remained faithful to the Bible of his fathers. Philo was later imitated by the Apologist philosophers and the "Church Fathers." Gradually, this mixture formed a new philosophical current, which was an evolution of Plotinus's Neoplatonism, characterized as patristic philosophy, the Byzantine thought.

According to this new "patristic" philosophy, the "heavenly" man, Jesus Christ, is the incarnation of the pre-existent God the Son, has two natures, is a perfect man like an earthly one and a perfect God—here we have a copy of the mythological model "biological man - god"—and thus the Jewish deniers, who deceitfully led Jesus to the cross because He made Himself God while (according to them) He was a biological man, were vindicated by the "cooking" of the Fathers.

“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:33)

Patristic Philosophy and its Opposition to the Scriptures

The "Fathers" of the new religion, also influenced by Philo's love for contradictory Greek philosophy, ignored the Scriptures which say:

“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” [1 Cor. 1:21]

“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” [1 Cor. 2:6-8]

The apostolic teaching in the Holy Spirit, that Christ is the manifestation of God's love and "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" is in contrast to human philosophy.

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” [1 Cor. 2:13]

“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” [1 Cor. 1:19-20]

The Apologist philosophers attempted to equate this contrast, on the one hand by downgrading "the gospel of God" to the level of human philosophy, and on the other by elevating contradictory human philosophy to a divine level. [Rom. 15:16]

“For Plato, as if he had descended from above and accurately seen all things in heaven, says that the supreme God is in a fiery substance. But Aristotle [...] clearly and manifestly refutes Plato's opinion.” [Justin Martyr, Exhortation to the Greeks (80, 81)]

A large portion of "Christians" from the 2nd century AD onwards proceeded with this contradictory philosophy, seduced by the Apologists, who erroneously taught that philosophy is a pedagogue to Christianity and a collaborator in understanding the truth, even though Justin in his writings presents versions contradictory to each other according to the latter.

The view that ancient philosophy is a collaborator in the Truth, Justin in one place (Second Apology, 10.1-8) attributes to the "spermatic word," i.e., the revelation of the God of the Bible to the pagan world in the form of seeds of truth; in another (First Apology, 54.1-10, Dialogue with Trypho, 69.1-4) he says that the devil (through philosophy) tried to deceive the nations so they would not believe in Christ; and in yet another (First Apology, 44.8-11) he says that the Greeks received their words from Moses and the prophets. Irenaeus of Lyons tried to smooth over the cacophony of contradictions through the theology of "recapitulation."

This teaching was in complete opposition to the teaching of the Apostles who said:

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” [Gal. 3:24-25]

The few references in the New Testament to Greek literature have merely a human meaning and do not prove the parallel adoption or dissemination of philosophical currents by the Apostles. This is erroneously claimed by the devotees of the evolved and processed "patristic" Christianity, which, as foretold, is the result of a years-long process of mixing mythology with the revelation of Truth by the Holy Spirit, which was sent from heaven. [1 Peter 1:12]

Biblical Testimony and the New Religion

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” [1 Cor. 2:4-5]

Accepting this correct practice of the apostle Paul, the Jews of Berea were "more noble" than those in Thessalonica. When Paul visited them in their synagogue, they received the word with all readiness. To ascertain the truth about Jesus, they "searched the scriptures daily" without resorting to Greek philosophy, which was seizing Christ as spoils from the believers.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” [Col. 2:8]

The New Religion

The Platonizing new "patristic" thought, concealed behind the Hebrew Bible and the person of Jesus Christ and having Hellenism as its background, ultimately formed a new polytheistic religion, supported by the Roman policy of New Rome. Reviving typologically the incinerated liturgical forms of Judaism ("the elements shall melt with fervent heat" [2 Pet. 3:10])—such as earthly temples with symbolic arrangement and function, strongly reminiscent of the burned Temple of the Jews—it promoted the "other God Logos" of Philo and the Apologist Justin and other philosophers, from a "second" and "inferior" god, to "co-eternal" and "co-essential" with the Father, making an ontological equation of God the Father and God the Son.

The erroneous effort of the Apologists to mix Greek thought—which accepted complex deities with a hierarchical union of divine members [henotheism]—with biblical Monotheism, gave birth to long theological-philosophical battles. Finally, with the contribution of the philosopher "Fathers" and the convening of many Councils, which in practice fueled new conflicts, and successive depositions and exiles of bishops from all factions, a God of three Hypostases, a Triune Godhead, was produced, thus vindicating human philosophy and the perennial pagan polytheism.

The incomprehensible "Tri-hypostatic Unity" became fully comprehensible at the end of the 4th century AD, only by the philosopher "Fathers," who finalized the "Trinitarian" dogma that was proclaimed as Orthodox by imperial decree, replacing the teaching "according to Christ." [Col. 2:8]

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Excerpt from a decree of Byzantine Roman Law.

'Concerning the orthodox faith of the Christians and that no one should dare to publicly dispute about it.'

(1) Read book 1, title 1, chapters 1 and 4, in which it says that a Christian is one who believes there is one deity with equal power of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, for he who believes contrary to what has been said is a heretic.

(2) Let no cleric or monk or soldier or any other person, gathering a crowd, publicly discuss the faith, for he would seem to insult the Council in Chalcedon which duly formulated everything, and which gives all heretics the opportunity to know our views. Therefore, if the one doing this is a cleric, he shall be expelled from the assembly of clerics. If a soldier, from the army. Let the rest be punished according to their respective rank. 

Historical Testimonies and Interventions

The "divine inspiration" of the Hellenizing patristic dogma and the conflicts and reactions between the patriarchal thrones, which were ultimately subdued by the emperor, is attested by the ecclesiastical history of V.K. Stefanidou, Papademetriou publications, from which we read excerpts:

"Theophilus of Alexandria was a devotee of Origen and an enemy of anthropomorphism. The monks of the Scetis in large groups went to Alexandria and threatened that they would kill him if he did not condemn Origen [...] Celestine of Rome considered the convening of an ecumenical council (for Nestorianism) unnecessary, but accepted it being convened by the emperor of the East Theodosius II and the emperor of the West Valentinian III. Thus the Third Ecumenical Council was convened in Ephesus (431). Theodosius II was favorably disposed towards Nestorius, appointed an imperial representative at the council, the count Candidian, a personal friend of Nestorius, and permitted part of the splendid imperial guard to accompany Nestorius to Ephesus. Cyril, one of the four great patriarchs of Alexandria (the third in order), like-minded nephew and successor of the known to us Theophilus of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus, followed by Egyptian bishops, monks, servants, and strong-armed sailors, who were ready with irresistible arguments to support their lord and his teaching against any possible violence from the opponents [...] Thus the Council of Ephesus split into two parts with opposing decisions." (pp. 208, 216-7)

"Emperor Theodosius II, persuaded by the supporters of Eutyches, convened a council in Ephesus (449), the sessions of which were held in the church of Mary. As imperial representatives were present the count (imperial advisor) Elpidius and the tribune and notary (both titles of an imperial secretary - the titles of 'count' and 'tribune' were given to civilian and military officials) and as representatives of Leo of Rome, one bishop, one presbyter (Renatus, who died in Delos before reaching Ephesus) and one deacon. President appointed by the emperor was Dioscorus of Alexandria. Flavian of Constantinople and his followers were deprived of the right to vote, while such a right was given to the Syrian presbyter and abbot Barsumas, as a representative of the Monophysite monks of Syria. The latter, through monks armed with rods, spades, and slings, was plundering the churches of the Nestorians along the Euphrates, burning their monasteries and driving out or killing the Nestorian bishops. Coming to Ephesus he brought this battalion with him for any eventuality. From the beginning, various numerous groups exercised terror over the non-Monophysites of the council in Ephesus: rough local soldiers, fanatical monks, coming from Constantinople and Syria (none are mentioned from Egypt), strong-armed sailors and vicious parabolani (the parabolani are mentioned in the rise of Cyril to the patriarchal throne, and in the murder of the philosopher Hypatia), who were nurses, used also as gravediggers and in case of need for any other serious purpose. The last two groups were brought from Egypt by Patriarch Dioscorus. The teaching of Eutyches was presented as follows: 'two natures before the union, one after it' and was recognized as orthodox, and Eutyches was acquitted. The same formulation was used by Cyril of Alexandria, but he added the 'unconfusedly and unchangeably', while Eutyches accepted the human nature of Christ as 'not consubstantial with us'. Because the proposed deposition of Flavian caused objections, the terror increased and thus brought results. Flavian made an appeal, without mentioning to whom it was addressed, tried to take refuge under the holy altar as a sanctuary, without succeeding. Pushed and beaten, he was thrown out of the Church, deposed and exiled. The excesses are not mentioned in the surviving acts of the council, but are known from testimonies made at the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Mansi, 6, 828). [...] Emperor Theodosius II ratified the decisions, but Leo of Rome rejected the council, calling it the 'Robber Council' (latrocinium Ephesium)." (pp. 222-224)

The Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodosius

The Sun-worshipping, Polytheistic, Mithraist, Bloodthirsty emperor of the Romans, Flavius Valerius Constantine, for political reasons sought the religious assimilation of his subjects, believing that this would secure the favor of the God of the "Christians" in his military campaigns and also the willingness of the Christians themselves to shed their blood for the empire. As an idolater, whatever knowledge he had about the Son of God, he had derived from the disputed oracles of a Sibyl [= prophetess and priestess of the god Apollo] whom he also blessed.
"This was divinely inspired to be prophesied by the virgin Sibyl. And I certainly consider her blessed, since the Savior [epithet of Apollo] chose her as a prophetess concerning His providence for us." [Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Oration to the Assembly of the Saints, ch. 18, 5]
Most of Eusebius's contemporaries considered that the Sibylline oracles concerning Jesus were forgeries, as Eusebius himself testifies:
"But most people disbelieve, although they admit that the Erythraean Sibyl was a prophetess, but they suspect that these verses were composed by someone from our own religion not devoid of poetic muse and that these are spurious and were called oracles of the Sibyl." [Life of Constantine, Oration to the Assembly of the Saints, ch. 19, 1]
Emperor Constantine came from the army and had taken his office through military feats. His main concern was proper administration, the increase and maintenance of his territorial dominion. Without knowledge of Greek and Jewish literature and incompetent in Judeo-Christian biblical matters, he convened the First Ecumenical Council, which was characterized as a political act, aiming at the cohesion of the Roman state through a common faith. By enacting the decisions of the Council as state law with the penalty of death for dissenters, he set himself up as the patron of the already Hellenized and Schismatic Christianity, and granted special privileges to the Clergy. Himself influenced by Arianist bishop friends and his sister Constantia, he leaned towards Arianism. A few years later, after the condemnation of Arianism by the Council and the exile of Arius, he recalled the latter from exile and punished in the same way the great opponent of Arius at the Council, the "Father" Athanasius of Alexandria.

The greatest distortion, however, of the promises of God and the teaching of genuine Christianity (which has no national flag or color), was brought about by Emperor Theodosius, who in 380 AD made processed Christianity the official religion of his empire, thus attributing a national-religious identity to the earthly citizens of his state, in contrast to the spiritual and not worldly identity that the one God recognizes in the "partakers of the heavenly calling." [Heb. 3:1]

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” [Gal. 3:26-29]

The new state religion of the philosopher "Fathers," supported by the anti-pagan legislation of the sole-ruler patrons, who outlawed all ancient religions imposing the penalty of beheading and other means of punishment on dissenters, achieved its violent prevalence, resulting in enduring spiritual darkness in East and West, and placed the political and religious tradition of the Roman Empire under the control of the intolerance and absolute dogmatism of the new religion.

The quoted passage from the Acts of the Apostles highlights the complete contrast between God's good intentions for man and the purposes and interests served by the state of the New Religion, an ally of Byzantium, as well as its policy of violent clearance of those of other religions.

“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” [Acts 26:18]

There were, of course, voices that opposed the intolerance of fanatical and violent "Christians" and intervened on behalf of the persecuted of other religions, simultaneously confirming the extent of the pogrom against them. A characteristic example is the sons of Theodosius I, Honorius and Theodosius II, who tried to protect law-abiding Pagans from mistreatment by fanatical "Christians" and demanded, according to the law, double compensation in case of theft of their properties. ("History of the Greek Nation," Ekdotiki Athinon A.E. vol. 7, p.345)

Also: Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to Asclepiodotus, Praetorian Prefect:
"[...] We specifically order that the genuine Christians and those who claim to be, should not abuse the authority given to them by the Church and dare to lay violent hands upon the Jews and Pagans who live peacefully and do not attempt anything against public order and our laws. For if such Christians act violently against peaceful people living in security, or plunder their goods, they shall be compelled to replace what they stole twofold, threefold, or even fourfold. Also, let the provincial governors, their staff, and the inhabitants of these provinces be informed that we will not permit such a crime to be committed. Otherwise, they will be punished in the same way as those who committed the crime." [Theodosian Code XVI.10.24 (8 June 423 AD)]

The Side Effects of the Nationalization of the New Religion

Anti-Christian are the consequences of the decision of the Roman emperor Theodosius I (379-395) to nationalize the work of God for the salvation of men, which are perpetuated and reflected

I) In the results of the anti-pagan policy that he and other Roman emperors followed, which resembles that of the Persian king Artaxerxes.

“And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.” [Ezra 7:26]

The Canadian historian James Allan Evans states: [The mob violence against pagan temples and idols was carried out at the instigation of "Christian" monks. "At the popular level, the most implacable enemies of paganism were the monks. [...] The monks took an active part in the controversies over correct Christian dogma. [...] The monks showed no mercy to pagans. When mobs destroyed pagan temples, the monks were usually at their core"]. (James Allan Evans, The Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine Empire, Greenwood Press, 2005, p. xxvii, xxviii)] (Wikipedia)

II) In the peculiar Christian perception acquired by the Byzantine "Christian" subjects, as revealed in the following excerpt from an article by theologian Manolis Tzirakis:
“But beyond the emperor, the subject of the Byzantine state is a pure and faithful Christian. He believes that the state to which he belongs is under the protection of God and enjoys His favor. This belief is expressed by Cosmas Indicopleustes in the 6th century when he states that: 'The State of the Romans will not be conquered, it will remain unharmed through the ages, as the first to believe in the Lord Christ' (att. Arveler, 2009). The members of Byzantine society are law-abiding subjects of the emperor and devoted Christians in their faith, guided by monks and clerics, they listen indiscriminately to the name Roman or Christian, concepts synonymous in Byzantium, which its emperor Leo VI characteristically calls the Nation of Christians, while the Byzantine people were called Peculiar or New Israel (Arveler, 2009).” Source

III) In the periodic prevalence of the warring dogmatic groups with the favorable support of the respective emperor, which always had political motives. Basil Stefanidis, who was an archimandrite and professor at the University of Athens, in his "Ecclesiastical History" states that:
“[..] the Church was subordinated to the state. Caesaropapism was analogous to the persons and the circumstances, sometimes heavier, sometimes lighter. The election of bishops and especially of patriarchs, the foundation and merging of bishoprics and archbishoprics and their elevation into metropolises, or the proclamation of autocephalous Churches depended on the emperor. Appeals from ecclesiastical courts were made to the emperor. The emperor convened the ecumenical councils, directed them personally or through representatives, made the synodal decisions laws of the state, and of the warring dogmatic teachings, he himself determined which would prevail. Thus Constantius and Valens imposed Arianism, the Great Theodosius Orthodoxy, Basiliscus Monophysitism, Zeno sidelined the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Justinian by dogmatic decrees determined the faith of his subjects and, finally, imposed Monophysitism, Heraclius imposed Monothelitism and Leo III the Isaurian Iconoclasm.” (Ecc. History Stefanidou, Papademetriou pub. (6th ed.), p. 149)

IV) In the priestly character that the emperors acquired, when in the Councils they were acclaimed as "high priests."
“And the iconoclastic council of 754 decided that 'God raised up our faithful kings as equals of the Apostles, endowed by the power of the same Spirit, for our instruction and teaching, and for the destruction of the strongholds of the demons' (Mansi 13, 225). Through these words the emperors were proclaimed Equal-to-the-Apostles and divinely inspired.” (Ecc. History Stefanidou, Papademetriou pub. (6th ed.), p. 151)

Epilogue

The formed religious and subsequent political supremacy of the new worldly Byzantine religion refers rather to the military conquering triumphs of Rome, than to the pure and through the Holy Spirit heavenly destiny, which early Christianity charted with the persuasion of the God-breathed written word and not with the persuasion of contradictory evolved patristic philosophy and armed coercion, which harmed and adulterated the basic truths that God is love and God is One.

“And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” [Acts 28:23]

“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” [Matt. 11:25-27]

Jesus reigns!

<< Back to Homepage