The Beloved Russian Old Ritualist Believers

[PeterTheAleut]

Somehow, I don't think Hopeful Faithful (a.k.a. John Alden) truly represents Old Believer faith and praxis.  Some of his ideas seem quite extreme even compared to what little I know of Old Believer tradition.

 

[Ebor]

Anyone can test and prove things well enough to find the truth. If people care to know specific sources of mine I will be glad to work at offering them. Several things should be understood from the start. The English language was always forbidden by the early Christians to use in prayer, worship or scripture, because it is a tradition of men made by witches.

Indeed, one can look for facts and details of history and other fields to find out what is true.  And just for starters, what you write above is not true.  I would be most interested in knowing what "specific source" you have for the above assertion, because historically and linguistically it is wrong.

How can "English" have been "forbidden" by "Early Christians" when the English language did not exist in the first century AD? What time period is "Early" please?  What do you mean by "English" anyway, may one ask?

Old English or Anglo Saxon came first and is the language of "Beowulf" and the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" and Bede's "Ecclesiastical History of the English People". The Gospels were translated into it:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4506/luke-ws.html
The Gospel of Luke in West Saxon

It was the language of Caedmon and his hymn.
http://www.heorot.dk/bede-caedmon.html 

The Lord's Prayer was translated into it.  It starts:
Fæder ure,
þu þe eart on heofonum,
si þin nama gehalgod.....
http://www.pastperfect.info/sites/yeavering/archive/prayer.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ascp/a03_29.htm

I can provide more links and source materials to show that your statement on the language being forbidden is an error, it is not true.  I use Old English since that is the form of the language that would be closest to "early Christians".  Middle English came out of Old English and is the language of Chaucer and the Wycliffe translation of the Bible.  Moving on to Modern English, which has changed over the centuries, we have the King James Version of the Bible and much more.  That covers over 15 centuries of a language's history.

Would you be so good as to explain how an languge, any established language with centuries of use in a culture is a "tradition of men"?  And on what do you base the claim that it was "made by witches" please?  Are you a linguist?  A philologist?  On what authority do you make such a peculiar assertion about a language?

There is so much in your screed that would appear to be your own particular opinions without any support or authority beyond your say-so.  What are your sources then, please? for example this one:

Bathing has been known a pagan custom which we would do well to avoid.

Do you mean going swimming in a pool or lake or the sea?  On what do you base this claim?

To usurp God with devilish traditions of men like pharmaceuticals is unthinkable. God gives, God takes away.

The knowledge and ability to find cures or relief for human ills is "satanic" as opposed to God giving Humans the brains and talents to think things through, to find things that help people who are suffering?

The Church of the Nativity in Erie, Pa. (and other similar kinds of “old believers”) are to be understood as “unionists” that have compromised their good roots. Due to such tendencies the earth swallowed hundreds of their family and neighbors.

Or this one.  The "earth swallowed" hundreds of people? Where?  on what dates?  What documentation would you provide to support a claim of the ending of many human lives?

Forgive, John

And what is it that you wish to be forgiven *for* one wonders.

Since the claims about English are wrong, why should any of your other opinions be thought "True"? 

With respect,

Ebor

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Somehow, I don't think Hopeful Faithful (a.k.a. John Alden) truly represents Old Believer faith and praxis.  Some of his ideas seem quite extreme even compared to what little I know of Old Believer tradition.

Greetings there PeterThe Aleut,

It would be nice if you could be specific, could you?

Forgive, John Alden

http://MyMartyrdom.com

(619) 243-6252

 

[Ebor]

Somehow, I don't think Hopeful Faithful (a.k.a. John Alden) truly represents Old Believer faith and praxis.  Some of his ideas seem quite extreme even compared to what little I know of Old Believer tradition.

Some time back I had read postings by a "John Alden" (assuming that they are the same person) on another EO board. It was similar to this, and iirc at that time he was not part of any Old Believer group.  One wonders if he is now.

Ebor

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Just don't do anything that gets you struck by "God's electricity".

Greetings PeterTheAluet,

We would not even be here if it were not for "God's electricity" (no winking here).

Forgive, John

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

I think this is the major issue with Old Believers - they have completely lost site of trying to love their fellow Orthodox that they can only concentrate on the letter of the laws.

Greetings Elisha,

How is it loving to reject the law and accept Latin reforms and still believe that Orthodoxy exists therein?

If there was ever a good answer to this I might begin to believe that the Old Believers are the unloving ones.

Forgive, John

 

[Hopeful Faithful]

Indeed, one can look for facts and details of history and other fields to find out what is true.  And just for starters, what you write above is not true.  I would be most interested in knowing what "specific source" you have for the above assertion, because historically and linguistically it is wrong.

How can "English" have been "forbidden" by "Early Christians" when the English language did not exist in the first century AD? What time period is "Early" please?   What do you mean by "English" anyway, may one ask?

Old English or Anglo Saxon came first and is the language of "Beowulf" and the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" and Bede's "Ecclesiastical History of the English People". The Gospels were translated into it:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4506/luke-ws.html
The Gospel of Luke in West Saxon

It was the language of Caedmon and his hymn.
http://www.heorot.dk/bede-caedmon.html 

The Lord's Prayer was translated into it.  It starts:
Fæder ure,
þu þe eart on heofonum,
si þin nama gehalgod.....
http://www.pastperfect.info/sites/yeavering/archive/prayer.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ascp/a03_29.htm

I can provide more links and source materials to show that your statement on the language being forbidden is an error, it is not true.  I use Old English since that is the form of the language that would be closest to "early Christians".  Middle English came out of Old English and is the language of Chaucer and the Wycliffe translation of the Bible.  Moving on to Modern English, which has changed over the centuries, we have the King James Version of the Bible and much more.  That covers over 15 centuries of a language's history.

Would you be so good as to explain how an languge, any established language with centuries of use in a culture is a "tradition of men"?  And on what do you base the claim that it was "made by witches" please?  Are you a linguist?  A philologist?  On what authority do you make such a peculiar assertion about a language?

There is so much in your screed that would appear to be your own particular opinions without any support or authority beyond your say-so.  What are your sources then, please? for example this one:

Do you mean going swimming in a pool or lake or the sea?  On what do you base this claim?

The knowledge and ability to find cures or relief for human ills is "satanic" as opposed to God giving Humans the brains and talents to think things through, to find things that help people who are suffering?

Or this one.  The "earth swallowed" hundreds of people? Where?  on what dates?  What documentation would you provide to support a claim of the ending of many human lives?

And what is it that you wish to be forgiven *for* one wonders.

Since the claims about English are wrong, why should any of your other opinions be thought "True"? 

With respect,

Ebor

Greetings Ebor,

By English I mean that tradition of men made first by witches and which continues today in this language we are currently using. When I speak of early I mean those from the time when the roots of English began, that is early enough for me to call it early Christianity. Your references to "Beowulf" and the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" and Bede's "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" do not reference any good authority in Church use. Bede was condemned by his bishop so I do not accept references to such things as being of good source. I know that there have been many heretical translations, as you show, but they are not one of them is of good Christian authority. It is not true that Old English was ever of a good Christian source. How can a language of witches be Christian? The fact that Old English is a tradition of men made by witches is undeniable. I have never seen one good Christian reference that ever accepted it as a sacred language. I will get three references to the fact that English is a tradition of men made by witches, give me a little time to look them up. I will indeed explain in detail about all these things, but it will take time for me to put it together. It should be noted that Wycliffe and King James were both manifest heretics, so I do not recognize them as any authority. We all make our choices though. I have studied language for 20years, at seminary level. Everyone should make themselves aware of the truth, it is all our personal responsibility. Being born into this world gives all of us this authority, which nobody can take away. I would argue the same thing about opinions here, it is clear where most of the opinions come from. Let us all reconsider these things more than ever and be keeping only the opinion of God. The good old Christian attitude toward "bathing" is recorded more than well enough, but I will work to offer a few refrences about it as well. I have referenced the flood and Korah as two references where the earth swallowed people. The facts about English have not been shown wrong. As far as being forgiven, we all offend, we all have need of forgiveness.

Forgive, John

 

[Veniamin]

The "facts" about English have not been proven wrong?  Sorry, bub, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt.  If you want to make an assertion that flies against consensus, you have to provide evidence for it.  You don't get to throw something unsubstantiated out there and say that it's true until we prove otherwise. 

 

[Anastasios]

Greek was a language of pagans and Slavonic was the language of people who worshipped trees among other things. So, whence the idea that these are holy languages?

 

[Asteriktos]

How is it that the Old Believers are so pure? If I were to use your methodology, I could just as easily argue that the Old Believers were heretics. The Orthodox who brought the Russians into the Eastern Church were in communion with Rome (on and off) for generations (from the 9th to 11th centuries), even after Rome had accepted the filioque, had declared that anti-Photian robber council to be Ecumenical, had openly declared the heresy of papal supremacy, and so forth. Therefore, all of Orthodoxy was fallen by the time Russia became Christian via the Eastern Church. Thus, the Old Believers were merely a break off of a group (Russians) that had never in their history been a true Church, because they were originally guided and formed by a latin-loving Eastern Orthodox world (Constantinople, etc.).

 

[Ebor]

By English I mean that tradition of men made first by witches

As opposed to English the language that come from Indo-European through the Germanic branch?  I'm sorry, your "definitions" of things seem to be ideosyncratic and unexplained.  What do *you* mean by "witches" and what is their time period and location please?

When I speak of early I mean those from the time when the roots of English began, that is early enough for me to call it early Christianity.

Is it then somewhere around the 4th century AD with St. Patrick being born to Romano-British Christian parents?  Or do you mean earlier when St. Alban became the proto-martyr of the British Isles?  Or some other period.  Please be more specific as to your meanings and definitions.

Your references to "Beowulf" and the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" and Bede's "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" do not reference any good authority in Church use.

"Beowulf" is literature with Christian elements.  The "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" is a primary source historical document.  And Bede's "Ecclesiastical History" is also an historical work that has a great focus on matters of English Christians. They are how we know what was happening in early Christian England.  Have you read any of these works and understood them?

Bede was condemned by his bishop so I do not accept references to such things as being of good source.

Condemned for what?  Which bishop?  What references do you have for this?  I provide links and I can give titles of books as well.  I beg your pardon, but that you do not 'accept' those references does not have any affect on the fact that they are examples of the language called Old English/Anglo-Saxon.  You have provided no references for your assertions at all. 

I know that there have been many heretical translations, as you show, but they are not one of them is of good Christian authority.

Not "good Christian authority"?  Because you say so?  Who are you to declare them heretical?  They were made long before the Great Schism of 1054, if one wishes to use that date for a marker.  They certainly were not speaking any form of Russian in Anglo-Saxon England or in Ireland or Scotland or Wales at that time.  They are what Anglo-Saxon Christians used in their own tongue. 

It is not true that Old English was ever of a good Christian source.

And your proof or documentation of this would be?  Merely repeating the same lines about 'traditions of men' is not proof nor support for your argument.

I have never seen one good Christian reference that ever accepted it as a sacred language.

And is your definition of a 'good Christian reference' one that agrees with your particular ideas?  :-\ You believe in 'sacred languages'?  Since God has caused all things to come into being including languages and human intelligence to use and develope them, it is possible that all languages are on a common footing in that regard.

I will get three references to the fact that English is a tradition of men made by witches, give me a little time to look them up. I will indeed explain in detail about all these things, but it will take time for me to put it together.

May one suggest that for future 'fiats' it would be useful for you to have your documentation available to support your opinions?  Please do provide some references, and would you please also define what the words mean to you, since they seem to have some connotations that are not shared by other people?  Thank you in advance.

It should be noted that Wycliffe and King James were both manifest heretics, so I do not recognize them as any authority.

I offered them as markers in the history of the developement of the English Language, nothing more.  Sometimes having an historical reference point is helpful in understanding ideas and history.

We all make our choices though. I have studied language for 20years, at seminary level.

May one ask what seminary(ies) you have been associated with for these studies please?  What languages have you studied?  I'm sorry, but claiming to study for 20 years does not mean that expertise has been attained.  So far you have not offered any support that would lead me to accept you as any kind of authority.

Everyone should make themselves aware of the truth, it is all our personal responsibility.

Sometimes what is true and what a person likes or believes are not the same thing.

Being born into this world gives all of us this authority,

I begin to wonder if you have a different definition of 'authority'...

it is clear where most of the opinions come from.

Human beings with ideas and likes and dislikes and the influences that make up their lives. 

Let us all reconsider these things more than ever and be keeping only the opinion of God.

So far you have not demonstrated that you are an authority on what God, The Creator of All Things, wants human beings to do, but have only put forth a lengthy and questionable essay on what you think things should be.

The good old Christian attitude toward "bathing" is recorded more than well enough, but I will work to offer a few refrences about it as well.

Again, please do, as well as defining what you mean by 'bathing'.  Tubs and hot water?  Sea bathing at the shore?  Swimming in a pool?

I have referenced the flood and Korah as two references where the earth swallowed people.

Since both the flood and Korah are long in the past from the people at the Old Believer parish in Erie, PA in 2007 these incidents do not apply to the people there today.  Yet you asserted that *those* people alive and worshipping in Pennsylvania have had 'hundreds' of relatives and neighbors 'swallowed up' and you have given no supporting data. There is no proof that your idea has any truth or reality.

The facts about English have not been shown wrong.

You have shown no "facts" about English at all. You have merely repeated your idea without any support or definitions of what you might mean.  When counter-evidence with documentation was offered to your assertions, you declared them 'heretical'.  You said that something did not exist, when in fact it did.  Your personal ideas are not the same as 'facts'.

Ebor

 

[Asteriktos]

Ebor,

You believe in 'sacred languages'?  Since God has caused all things to come into being including languages and human intelligence to use and develope them, it is possible that all languages are on a common footing in that regard.

Also, even supposing that you do believe in sacred languages, it was hardly strange throughout Church history for sacred things to be translated into vulgar tongues. Even John Chrysostom (horrors!) did this when he was exiled.

 

[recent convert]

Greetings Elisha,

How is it loving to reject the law and accept Latin reforms and still believe that Orthodoxy exists therein?

If there was ever a good answer to this I might begin to believe that the Old Believers are the unloving ones.

Forgive, John
Sure you can snow a peasant like me with endless sources of data for self justification cloaked in false humility but you are not one to determine who Jesus Christ will welcome into the kingdom of heaven. How does one not know that Satan may be using you as a self proclaimed pharisee to try to shut the doors of the kingdom of heaven to others? Perhaps you need to repent and try to live the simple commands of Jesus Christ of the golden rule and loving God and your neighbor as yourself. It is heresy to proclaim apocatastasis but it is permissable to pray for it. God does know a sinning grouch such as myself is unworthy but the struggle is to believe everyone else is.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Misplaced "[/quote]" tag?

 

[Anastasios]

Hey man, if you want to live like an Old Believer, what is stopping you? Go up to one of their compounds, knock on the door, ask for baptism, and enjoy the rest of your life.

 

[Aristocles]

Hey man, if you want to live like an Old Believer, what is stopping you? Go up to one of their compounds, knock on the door, ask for baptism, and enjoy the rest of your life.

Ouch!

 

[Serge]

Well, if 'Speak for yourself' John Alden wanted to parody self-destructive converts he seems to have done a wickedly thorough job with his site.

<- Never been to an Old Rite church but has the beautiful Old Rite ROCOR Prayer Book, now a classic, and knows and likes Slavonic. And knows somebody born and raised Priestless Old Believer, now ROCOR, who is perfectly normal.

 

[theodore]

Anyone can test and prove things well enough to find the truth. If people care to know specific sources of mine I will be glad to work at offering them. Several things should be understood from the start. The English language was always forbidden by the early Christians to use in prayer, worship or scripture, because it is a tradition of men made by witches. English simply does not have the tools to properly express the things of God. Man generated electricity is strange fire like the strange incense warned against by the prophets of old. Petroleum products, like plastics, synthetic clothing and man made chemicals are the remains of the damned dead people, plants and animals from things like the flood and Korah, etc. They are black and stink, spiritually defiling and ungodly. It is the demons that carry the data/voices back and forth between computers/telephones. It is the demons who inspired people to use such things because they will ultimately be part of what is known as the Mark of the Beast. These things are simply not Christian.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the language used by people on the British Isles (and all of Western Europe for that matter) was LATIN.  Perhaps the Roman Church made up stories about witches and so on to prevent the adoption of prayer in a language which the average person in England could actually understand.  Of course I have not heard of such stories, and you should provide references when making such novel claims.  To claim Slavonic is God's language reminds me of the Fundamentalist Protestants who claim that the only version of the Bible which is true is the King James Edition, ignoring the fact that the original was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  If you're such a linguistic snob, why don't you adopt worship in a language which Christ actually spoke, such as Aramaic.  There are indeed Syrian Christians who still use that language.  You then claim that "English simply does not have the tools to properly express the things of God."  Of all the languages out there, English is among the most adaptable, borrowing words from a multiplicity of different sources and languages.  There are multiple ways of expressing the same thoughts in English, and if none suits you, you can certainly find some way to express a thought, or even borrow a foreign, say Greek word which is suitable.  That's why we Orthodox use the term Pascha rather than Easter.  See, that wasn't so difficult.  If you feel so strongly about English being a language of witches, then I sir, assert that since YOU are expressing yourself in this forum using the very language which you condemn, that YOU ARE A WITCH!!!  If you think that my last sentence is ridiculous, than you need to re-read your argument condemning liturgical English.

 

[Aristocles]

Somehow I don't think the Scots, Welsh, Irish would agree with this totally.

 

[Ebor]

Somehow I don't think the Scots, Welsh, Irish would agree with this totally.

I do believe that you are correct. 

Ebor