The Canon by Denomination

I have made some modified charts based on internet chart:

Real Christianity is not mere Anti-Judaism

I hold the following to be a self-evident truth:

ANY religion which, for its own fundamental self-identity,
depends upon the villainizing of another prior religion,
is an utterly artificial and false religion.

I give the following three obvious, artificial, and ultimately harmful examples as proof of this statement:

(1) The Recent 'Witchcraft'/Wicca Pagan Revival. (1800-2000 A.D.)

Here, (a) there was another early Persecution by Christians of Pagan religions during the Byzantine Empire (330-1200 A.D.). (b) This was followed by a Crusade against the East, and (c) finally a large-scale Inquisition against heresy and 'witchcraft', including pogroms, and culminating in torture and execution.

This was finally quite clearly seen as a fundamental failure and injustice, brought on by ignorance, superstition, deep-rooted corruption, and abuse of power. As a result, we had a necessary religious Reformation, and the birth of modern democracy and science, with a corrective separation of Church and State.

Unfortunately, as a backlash and reaction to such extreme injustices and moral failure, we also had a resurgence of alternative superstitions. What had been mostly fictional nonsense about 'witches' and 'secret pagan rites', concocted by authorities from absurd 'confessions' in order to secure convictions and confiscate property, was given undeserved credibility and authenticity, and was believed by the gullible to have religious value.

As a result, a "Revival' of Witchcraft and 'Wicca' lore and superstition was born, which however was for the most part entirely unauthentic, and based on fiction and imagination, in part driven by profiteering from the ignorance of the gullible. A whole 'religion' was formed based on a kind of "Anti-Christianity", in which Christianity was villainized and whereby a 'Wicca culture' was created which defined itself more by being 'anti-Christian' than by being authentically Pagan.


(2) The Islamic 'Religion' (620-2000 A.D.)

Again, a 'religion' based largely upon plagarism of Judaism and other Middle-Eastern beliefs and tribal practices, was created in order to secure a power-base for a military-style ideological dictatorship with an entrenched hereditary "theocracy" whose rule was based upon a fixed set of legal practices and judicial guidelines.

The fact that the political motivation for "Islam" comes largely from the persecution and violence against another neighboring religion (Judaism) is a sure sign of a basic artificiality and an unsustainable approach to religion.

If Islam were authentic it would not need a perpetual caricature of an 'evil villain-race' or tribe to battle against, especially when that group is an obvious religious minority and of little significance to most of the world.


(3) European "Christianity" (1200-2000 A.D.)

Again we have a supposed 'religion' defining itself by the imagined or perceived necessity of a 'common enemy', "the Jews", a supposed conspiracy of 'anti-Christs' perpetually at war with the 'Church', the "true Israel" of faith.

All of this posturing is specifically framed in order to appropriate the supposed 'promises' to Israel given by the God of the Bible. The new Church substitutes itself for the "Israel" of old, indiscriminately and ahistorically applying all statements, claims, prophecies, promises, and covenants to itself, regardless of historical truth or circumstances behind the original documents.

Such an artificial version of 'Christianity' perpetuates a caste-system in which groups of ethnic and religious people (i.e., historical descendants and/or converts to another religion, Judaism) are assigned a second-class status based on a Spiritual and moral ranking, under the rubric "the Jews".

This status is maintained in order to define a form of 'Christianity' which can claim a superior religious and Spiritual status over and against its own Spiritual heritage and roots.

Unfortunately, this ideology works out in practical terms as very real and unjust persecution of an ethnic group, with economic and judicial hardships imposed, even to the point of a historical genocidal Holocaust.




In fact however, this artifical version of 'Christianity' is fundamentally flawed on two blatant points, both involving historical fact:

(a) The bulk of O.T. description, prophecy, promise and covenant was historically given to Israelites (i.e., "the Jews"), not the modern 'Church'. This is a simple historical fact, beyond dispute, if the O.T. documents are properly recognized as accurate, authoritative historical documents.

(b) The bulk of modern "Jews" do not at all conform to the simplistic, false caricature projected upon them by this artificial and historically false version of 'Christianity'.

Most modern "Jews" are not religious, and those who practice their religion do not base it upon an active persecution of those styling themselves "Christians". Although Judaism itself is a religion which has changed and evolved, and is now based on practices developed in a post-Christian world, it is still an older religion, and does not define itself in terms of another religion, especially as a religion which is "against Christianity". This is nonsense.

Most modern "Jews" intermarry with other religious and ethnic groups, and although they maintain a strong sense of identity and community, they are not a xenophobic or racist organization. As a result of obvioius historical persecution, the Jewish community does not actively proselytize or seek converts, but neither does it turn them away. Nor do most Jews single out Christianity as an 'enemy', or seek to divert or corrupt Christians and turn them into Jews.


What we see in all three historical examples above, is an artificial and even pathetic attempt by religious groups to make themselves distinct from others, largely at the expense of some minority of a usually already historically marginalized class.

What all three examples also have in common, is not just the targeting of "others" generally, but the active and conscious selection of a specific group to put down and persecute in order to build up themselves.

The 'Schools' of Alexandria and Antioch (4th-5th c. A.D.)

Here is a short discussion of the so-called 'schools' of Antioch and Alexandria, culled from the Orthodox site  Monachos

 "...
With regard to the Christological discussions of our period (the later fourth and early fifth centuries), reference made in modern scholarship to the 'Alexandrian' and 'Antiochene' schools attempts to homogenise under two relatively coherent umbrellas two general approaches to Christological reflection centred round these great cities and sees. The Alexandrine 'school' is seen most often as the older, dating back at least to Arius, and including such notable figures as the sainted bishop Athanasius of that city, as well as the anathematised Apollinarius. The insistence of all three writers, as well as others of their converging tradition, upon the divinity of the Logos in the 'becoming' of the incarnation, and a tendency in each to see that incarnation as a 'taking on of flesh' by the Logos, has earned their 'school' the reputation of fostering another scholarly category: a 'Logos/sarx Christology'.
Those referred to as 'Antiochene'-for example Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius of Constantinople, John of Antioch-are often referred to as preferring a 'Logos/anthropos Christology'; namely, one in which the Logos is united to man, or even 'a man'. A dominant insistence upon the full humanity of the incarnate Christ characterises all those shuffled under this umbrella.
The classification of these 'schools' is rather rough-and-ready. While some cases are clear-cut (e.g. Nestorius, who is evidently a theological descendent of Theodore), others are more difficult. St Cyril is a notable example. As bishop of Alexandria and strongly influenced by the theology of his predecessor, Athanasius, the temptation is certainly to call him a member of the Alexandrian 'school'. Yet one is hard-pressed to consider Cyril's Christology of hypostatic union conformable to any definition of the Logos/sarx 'model' by which that 'school' is so often characterised. And while such a figure as John of Antioch is almost universally considered a member of the Antiochene 'school', his later Christological dialogues with Cyril, most pointedly their joint 'formula of reunion', addresses the incarnational becoming in a manner that hardly fits within the broad categories of Theodore's reflection, taken by most as the standard for Antiochene Christology.
So we must take care not to read these 'schools' not schools in any strict sense. Rather, they represent loci of converging approaches to Christological reflection centred around two great strongholds of theological activity in the fourth and fifth centuries. And despite the dangers of generalisation, which in historical analysis leads too often to a false-homogenisation, certain common characteristics of these converging traditions can be ascertained, and prove helpful in our reading of doctrinal reflection in its historical progression. In a general sense, these trends and tendencies are as follows:

Alexandrian 'school'	Antiochene 'school'
Tendency toward Platonic metaphysical approach; a desire to move beyond appearances to the 'truly real'.	Tendency toward Aristotelian stress on concrete realities, factual historicity and its analysis, and the discernable characteristics of concrete reality.
Favours an allegorical reading of scripture, first proffered in a notable way by Origen; driven here by a desire to 'get to the real meaning' of given biblical passages.	Favours an historical/factual, 'literal', reading of scripture.
With regard to Christ, a tendency to focus on inner, metaphysical composition and activity.	A tendency to focus upon the factual/historical aspects of the human life of Christ-what he did, said, accomplished, etc. Cf. Theodore's exegetical interest in the 'historical Jesus'.
Soteriological convictions driven most often by notions of sanctification/divinisation, mystical relation, etc.	Soteriological convictions driven by corrective agency of divinity on humanity.
Generally: stress laid upon the ontological oneness of Christ-the divinity and humanity form one being-wrought most often by reference to the Logos/sarx framework (though not always; cf. Cyril of Alexandria).	Generally: stress laid upon the distinction between God and man in Christ-these not only distinct in discernable attributes, but in substantive reality. Preservation of full reality and integrity of both natures. Logos/anthropos model predominates.
Key weakness lies in the routine jeopardy into which the persistent distinction of natures is cast in the maintenance of the single ontological reality of the incarnate Christ.	Key weakness lies in the difficulty in expressing the genuine union of the two natures, and indeed the true oneness or singular subjectivity of the incarnate Christ.

Our thanks to the anonymous author of that useful overview.

Nazaroo

Revelation for Dummies (6) - The Great Period of Martyrdom

In Revelation 7:9-34 we are given a special vision,
of a vast number of Christian martyrs.
Those who try to apply this vision to the very early times (c. 60-130 A.D.)
or even the last 'great persecution' (c. 280-300 A.D.)
must interpret the vision as an exaggeration of sorts,
a poetical hyperbole.

But if we actually look at the history of Christianity for the last 2000 years,
we will be startled when we find just such a period in history,
and it was quite recent: The first and second World Wars.
The following chart diagrams both the expansion of Christianity,
and the significant periods and places of Christian Martyrdom:

The Second World War in particular is remembered for the Holocaust,
the slaughter of some 6 million people of the Jewish faith,
but the actual numbers for this war show that a a vastly larger number
of Christians, mostly civilians, women and children, were also slaughtered,
in a systemic pattern of genocidal acts, mostly simply butchering,
such as in the Croatian Holocaust, and other East-European events from
the beginning of the 20th century until the end of the Cold War.



It is remarkable that although this great slaughter of Christians temporarily slowed the expansion
of Christianity, it also gave it the greatest boost since the fall of Constantinople.

If we want to interpret Revelation historically, we are again faced with a prophecy
which has a clear and plain literal fulfillment without exaggeration, and with a specific time marked out.

Again, the overall effect is to place us in the Last Times, with few prophecies left to fulfill,
before the Return of the King.

Even Roman Catholic Scholars are dumping the UBS text

Ron Conte Jr. this summer completed an evaluation of the UBS text and its negative impact on the NV (New Vulgate) Latin edition.   He lists several key points online here:

 "I was dismayed and appalled by the decisions of the editors of the Nova Vulgata, especially to abandon the Latin scriptural tradition approved by the Council of Trent, and adopt in its place the critical Greek text of Matthew by the (Protestant) United Bible Societies. The UBS text, and the NV as well, omits over one hundred words from the Gospel, found in the Latin Vulgate, includes at least a couple of whole verses.

See the article for more critical comments about the NV.

Problems with the Nova Vulgata (NV):

1. the NV abandons the Latin scriptural tradition

2. the New Testament is simply a representation of the Protestant UBS (United Bible Societies) Greek text

3. the New Testament ignores all Latin and all Greek sources, other than the UBS text, which is mainly the work of Protestant scholars

4. the NV changes the wording in some verses out of political correctness, without any support in any manuscripts for those changes

5. the Latin scriptural tradition is supposed to be used by Bible scholars to settle any uncertain or disputed readings of the text in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. But since the NV does not represent the Latin scriptural tradition, but instead represents the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, it is not useful for that purpose

6. The Council of Trent declared that the Canon of Scripture includes all the parts of each book as found in the old Latin vulgate Bible (the Latin scriptural tradition). But the NV rejects the Latin scriptural tradition, and removes from the Canon very many words and phrases, as well as more than a few entire verses.

7. The NV relies on the Protestant Stuttgart Vulgate for its base text, ignoring the Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII Vulgate which was used by the Church for several hundred years as the official Latin Bible.

8. The only version of the NV contains hundreds of typographical errors.

9. The New Testament of the NV shows an appalling lack of editorial discretion. The Latin text is forced to conform to the Greek UBS text even when this makes the Latin text awkward or grammatically incorrect. Editorial decisions other than merely changing the Latin to conform lock step with the Greek are rare."

Its clear that some honest Roman Catholic scholars at least have noted in detail exactly what is wrong with the UBS text, and the devastating impact on Bible texts and translations it has had for the last 50 years.

Conte uses the following abbreviations:

CV - Clementine Vulgate
NV - Nova Vulgata from vatican.va
FS - Fischers Stuttgart edition (1975)
TR - Textus Receptus
MT - Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad, 1982)
UBS - 4th ed. 1993



Among the many flaws of the UBS text, Conte lists the following homoeoteleuton errors in UBS erroneously followed by the editors of the NV (new Vulgate version):


Matthew:

5:44 - NV omits 'do good to those who hate you', also omits 'and slander you', in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

 12:47 - NV changes 'seeking you' to 'seeking to speak with you', in accord with the Greek.

 15:6 - NV omits 'or his mother' and changes 'commandment of God' to 'word of God' in accord with UBS Greek, contrary (on both points) to CV, FS, TR, MT.

15:8 -   Again, it is clear that the NV rephrases the Vulgate to agree with the UBS Greek, even when the TR and MT agree with the Latin. There is a basis in both the Latin and Greek scriptural traditions to retain the Vulgate wording, and yet it is cast aside, making the NV a Latin version of the UBS Greek. The result is not very useful, since if a scholar wants to consult the UBS text, he would certainly prefer to look at the Greek text itself, rather than a Latin rendering of it. 

"Also, ...   the NV departs from the Latin scriptural tradition, substituting the Greek wording of the UBS text, so that the decision of Trent on the place that the Latin text has in the Church cannot be applied to the NV."

"The reader may also have noticed by now that the Stuttgart text in Latin does not usually edit the CV to conform to the Greek. Rather, the Stuttgart text (FS) is a moderate edit of the Vulgate. The editors of FS Matthew clearly had in mind to keep to the Latin scriptural tradition, or at least to recapture the essence of Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Their editorial decisions in Matthew have kept the Latin text distinct from the Greek text, like two different co-equal witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. By comparison, the Nova Vulgata has subjugated the Latin scriptural tradition entirely to the Greek, like a slave to a master. The Stuttgart edit is what the Nova Vulgata should have been."

18:11 -  NV omits verse 11, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

20:16 -  NV omits 'For many are called, but few are chosen' in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

 23:14 - NV and FS omit verse 14, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT. ( MT has verses 13 and 14 transposed.)

 26:3 - NV changes the Latin word 'atrium' to the word 'aulam' (a Latin word derived from Greek), in accord with the Greek text.

27:35 - NV and FS omit the portion of the verse stating that this event of dividing his garments fulfills the prophecy of the Old Testament, in accord with UBS and MT, but contrary to CV and TR.

 The NV would be no worse in its text if the project had been done by the Protestant scholars at the UBS. In fact, the FS is the work of a group of mostly Protestant scholars at the German Bible Society, and even they have seen fit to retain the CV test of Matthew in the vast majority of cases. So a group of Protestant scholars has created a Latin Bible, the Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate, which retains the Latin scriptural tradition and which generally follows the CV reading. But a group of Catholic monks, at a Benedictine monastery -- a monastery associated in past times with Saint Jerome---, who were given the task of updating the CV, have completely abandoned the Latin scriptural tradition, and have caused the NV to conform slavishly and unthinkingly solely to the Protestant UBS Greek text. If I did not know better, I would conclude that the monks of that monastery were Protestants, and that the editors of the FS were Catholics."

 Final Comments

" ...The Greek critical text of the United Bible Societies has the indisputable advantage of making the entire Bible thinner, lighter, and less expensive to publish. But the Latin and the other Greek texts have the advantage of not deleting words from inspired and inerrant Divine Revelation. The reader will have to decide for himself which advantage is to be preferred.

While it is certainly true that we must never add words to Sacred Scripture, we are also morally obligated not to delete words from Sacred Scripture."

 - exerpted from Problems with the NV in Matthew,  

Ronald L. Conte Jr. (June 18, 2010)

can the C of E and the Anglican communion be saved?

The leading question above is just that. It can be taken a number of ways.

The sense in which I mean it here, and the question to be answered,
will be explained by what follows.

As an Anglican I have a right to be heard,
and according to Holy Scripture,
the church has the obligation to hear (John 7:51),
before making any hasty or negative judgements.

(1) It can be no secret now (indeed it is an open scandal before other denominations and the world), that the Church of England is in crisis.

(2) The divisive issues are of course, ordination, and same-sex 'marriage'.

(3) The Crisis of the C of E however, is not new. Its roots go back
even to the Reformation, and the various dramatic internal upheavals inside the Realm,
and also world-scale judgments upon her and her peoples from outside.

(4) Historically, the C of E did not follow the most extreme impulses of the Reformation,
such as rejection of basic Christian truth and doctrine, and apostacy.

(5) In the midst of that crisis of the Reformation, an amazing thing happened. The clergy and king galvanized themselves in an unprecedented unity of faith and doctrine, and carefully and clearly formulated an agreement and a public statement of their position: The 39 Articles.

(6) The 39 Articles were not just a statement of beliefs. They were a formal contract, an irrevocable commitment by the clergy and king
on behalf of the British people.

(7) Along with the assents and commitments were the terms of enforcement,
meant to bind all parties to their word,
and accept the consequences of any and all violations of letter,
spirit and intent expressed by the contract.

(8) The King, the clergy, the realm, and its people were committed,
committed to a unified sovereign state, a kingdom, a monarchy,
a rule of government and faith and a commitment to the peace, unity,
and common good of the nation.

(9) This was not a 'suggestion', a mere expression of faith,
but an oath of fealty, a commitment to faithfulness;
not a vague interest in the pursuit of truth or goodwill,
but a defense of historical and spiritual facts, detailed, loud and clear.

(10) The Articles of Religion and the Book of Prayer was the blueprint,
the charter, the magna charta, the constitution of the British Empire.
It precedes even the King James Bible or Authorized Version,
which was a natural consequence of this national oath and contract,
evoked by the leadership of the British Isles on behalf of her people.

Perhaps the most important part of the 39 Articles,
and its very foundation as a commitment, contract, and oath
before God and man, a public witness to the whole world,
is the very first statement, and the first foundation-stone
upon which the rest of the Articles were built:

HIS MAJESTY'S DECLARATION.

"Being by God's Ordinance, according to one just Title,

Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church,

within these our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable

to this our Kingly Office, and Our own religous Zeal, to

conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our

Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace;

and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or

Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both

in the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore,

upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many

of Our Bishops as might convenientlv be called together,

thought fit to make this Declaration following:

That the Articles of the Church of England (which have

been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our

Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true

Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's

Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring

all our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession

thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said

Articles; which to that End We command to be new

printed, and this Our Declaration to be published therewith.

That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of

England : And that if any difference arise ahout the

external Policy, concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and

other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the Clergy

in their Convocation is to order and settle them, having

first obtained leave under Our Broad Seal so to do: and We

approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions;

providing that none be made contrary to the Laws and customs

of the Land.

That out of Our Princely Care that the Churchmen may

do the Work which is proper unto them, the Bishops and

Clergy, from time to time in Convocation, upon their humble

Desire, shall have Licence under Our Broad Seal to deliberate of,

and to do all such Things, as, being made plain

by them, and assented unto by Us, shall concern the settled

Continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of

England now established; from which we will not endure

any varying or departing in the least Degree.

That for the present, though some differences have been

ill raised, yet We take comfort in this, that all Clergymen

within Our Realm have always most willingly subscribed to

the Articles established; which is an argument to Us, that

they all agree in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said

Articles; and that even in those curious points, in which

the present differences lie, men of all sorts take the Articles

of the Church of England to be for them; which is an

argument again, that none of them intend any desertion,

of the Articles established.

That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences,

which have for so many hundred years, in different

times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, We will,

that all further curious search be laid aside, and these

disputes shut up in God's promises, as they be generally set

forth to us in the holy Scnptures, and the general meaning

of the Articles of the Church of England according to them.

And that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to

draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in

the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his

own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but

shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense.

That if any publick Reader in either of Our Universities,

or any Head or Master of a College, or any other person

respectively in either of them, shall, affix any new sense to

any Article, or shall publickly read, determine, or hold any

publick Disputation, or suffer any such to be held either

way, in either of the Universities or Colleges respectively : or

if any Divine in the Universities shall preach or print any

thing either way, other than is already established in Convocation

with Our Royal Assent; he, or they the Offenders,

shall be liable to Our displeasure, and the Church's censure

in Our Commission Ecclesiastical, as well as any other:

And We will see there shall be due Execution upon

them."

With these words the Royal Throne of Britain spoke clearly
and firmly of an eternal bond of fealty and loyalty taken
by the collective leadership of the Realm on behalf of its people.

It is this oath, which is in the process of being broken and betrayed,
and which will bring upon the British people, government,
and even if possible the very throne of David,
the consequences and curses of unbelief and apostacy,
the sure ruin and devastation of any nation which knowingly and willingly
takes such a sacred and holy oath before the very throne of
the Most High and Living God, and King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

What can a small, pitiful and loyal subject of the Realm, crown, and kingdom of God do,
when so precious a gift and calling is forsaken by a people,
left to fall into ignorance and darkness by a faulty and misguided leadership?

Pray for our leaders we must.
Pray for a new King who can as a worthy steward
of the greatest commission and nation made without hands,
step up and guide her out of darkness,
and not leave her to fall into pit of foolishness.
We don't need another Queen Victoria,
at who's helm the British peoples sailed to shipwreck.

We need a spiritual revival at the highest levels of leadership in Britain.

Don't call this a church.
We should be too ashamed to do so,
for doing so would inevitably force us to compare it to what it once was,
from the time of the Authorized Version until the 1860s,
and the fiasco of the Revised Perversion.

nazaroo

The "Godly Men" - infamous boners and frauds of Textual Criticism

The following articles will aptly begin with the documentation of some of the most ridiculous and unscrupulous frauds to have taken place in the history of textual criticism:

Unitarian Dishonesty

A Review of Shameful Acts

The posthumous takeover of Wetstein's Greek NT by Semler may have been one of the first in a series of frauds and deceptions by the Unitarians, but it was not to be the last.
At this time, we can list at least four major deceptions perpetrated by the Unitarians in their zeal to destroy the Textus Receptus and with it mainstream Christian doctrine:

1. 1765: J. Semler's Takeover and Rewrite of Wetstein's Prolegomena.
2. 1808: T. Belsham's Takeover and edit of Bishop Newcome's English NT.
3. 1856: S. Tregelles' Takeover and rewrite of Horne's Introduction.
4. 1862: C. Gregory's Takeover and ghost-write of Tischendorf's Prolegomena.

The similarities of the fraud in each case are stunning: (1) in each case, the success and reputation of the original author is capitalized on. (2) in each case, permission was either not obtained, or fraudulently obtained. (3) in each case, the author was dead or dying when the Unitarians stepped in. (4) In each case, history was rewritten, and minds diverted from what was really happening. (5) In each case, the original authors are praised but at the same time dismissed as in significant 'error' for deviating from the Unitarian/Hortian party position on the NT text.

We'll carry on from here shortly.

Peace
Nazaroo

Different Versions of Christian Denominationalism

Obviously in the West, we get two basic views of the splintering of Christianity, that of the Protestants, and that of the Roman Catholics.

---

It might be refreshing to look alternately at the Greek Orthodox version of events, to assist us with some kind of consensus, at least as to what has exactly happened.

Here is the Greek Orthodox Diagram of the 'Great Schism' and subsequent events:

Greek Orthodox View:  Click to Enlarge / Backbutton

Greek Orthodox consider themselves to be true "Catholics", and other break-away groups essentially heretical and a result of apostacy.

Earlier branches of Christianity are also considered 'break-away' churches:

Greek Orthodox View: Early Years

Of course Greek Orthodox are in agreement with many of the basic historical facts, as shown on these timelines.    They would acknowledge for instance, the Sacking of Constantinople by the Latins (1204), and the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslims (1453):

Greek Orthodox View: Later Years

 Presumably these events are not interpreted as the 'hand of God' in judgement, but rather the consequences of the sin of others.  The main break for Greek Orthodox is between it and the Latin Roman Catholic Western half of Europe.  The Latins stand geographically between the Greek Orthodox East and the Protestant Reformation lands.   The split between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants is probably perceived as distant and less significant.

---

Not surprisingly, other smaller churches which branch off in the East see themselves as more central and emphasize details of their own dependence and distinctions:

Click to Enlarge

---

Roman Catholics unsurprisingly see themselves as the central and true branch of Christianity, with others splitting off:

Click to Enlarge

In this view, Roman Catholics happily garner support from Anglicans (Church of England), who have preserved much of the ritual of basic Catholicism, and also call themselves "catholic".   Rome nonetheless maintains its own doctrinal distinctions as central and authoritative, over and against Anglican traditions.

---

Protestant Groups naturally focus on their own origin and development, but the basic facts are usually not in serious dispute.  It is more a question of doctrine, practice, and authority which separates Protestants from 'Catholic' groups:

Click to Enlarge

The larger Protestant churches, founded in the British Empire, Northern Europe and the West, tend to make themselves central:

Click to Enlarge

Likewise we see Each Denomination providing their own idea of important events:

If self-centeredness were a contest, the United Church seems to have taken the cake in terms of Denomination-Centric presentations:

Click to enlarge

---

... more comments to follow...

Nazaroo