Jump to content


Photo

Why Are There Armenian Protestants?


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#1 Arad9

Arad9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 09 September 2003 - 07:20 PM

why are there Armenian Protestants?
Weren't Protestants protesting from the Roman Catholic church?
If an Armenian who was never Roman Catholic, and becomes a Protestant, then that makes one confused individual.

#2 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Moderator
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 09 September 2003 - 07:50 PM

hehehe ... yes very interesting indeed.

I guess this is in contrast to other non-confused "orthodox" type christians who have it all figured out :D

Welcome to the forum.

#3 MosJan

MosJan

    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 09 September 2003 - 11:52 PM

is Protestants = Boroqakan ???

lsek iskapes isk inch e es borqakan kochvats@?


Movses

#4 Harut

Harut

    Վերնագիր

  • Nobility
  • 5,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:հորիզոն...
  • Interests:uninterested...

Posted 10 September 2003 - 12:13 AM

is Protestants = Boroqakan ???

lsek iskapes isk inch e es borqakan kochvats@?


Movses

hraparakum hakaQocharyanakan lozungner gorratsogh.

#5 Accelerated

Accelerated

    eh?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Location:Subaru Impreza WRX Sti
  • Interests:always changing

Posted 10 September 2003 - 12:30 AM

If an Armenian who was never Roman Catholic, and becomes a Protestant, then that makes one confused individual.


You dont have to be first Roman Catholic to become Protestant. Its basically another branch of Christianity started by Luther in the late Middle Ages (cant remmember exact year). I think the first Protestant Armenians were converted by German missionaries operating in the Ottoman Empire early 20th Century. Not sure on this one though....

#6 Arad9

Arad9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 10 September 2003 - 12:45 AM

You dont have to be first Roman Catholic to become Protestant. Its basically another branch of Christianity started by Luther in the late Middle Ages (cant remmember exact year). I think the first Protestant Armenians were converted by German missionaries operating in the Ottoman Empire early 20th Century. Not sure on this one though....

It started by Luther because supposedly he disagreed with the Roman Catholic church and not the armenian church

#7 MosJan

MosJan

    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 10 September 2003 - 01:05 AM

is Protestants = Boroqakan ???

lsek iskapes isk inch e  es borqakan  kochvats@?


Movses

hraparakum hakaQocharyanakan lozungner gorratsogh.

Harout jan du moratsel es vor menq arden hrapark el chunenq :(

Qandel en / mi or k@sargen yerevi :(

#8 MosJan

MosJan

    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 10 September 2003 - 01:09 AM

You dont have to be first Roman Catholic to become Protestant. Its basically another branch of Christianity started by Luther in the late Middle Ages (cant remmember exact year). I think the first Protestant Armenians were converted by German missionaries operating in the Ottoman Empire early 20th Century. Not sure on this one though....

ahha tes
norits germanatsiq HAyeri glxin shinel en
yerevi te et missonerneri turkia gnalu tomsern el hryanern en arel che ??
:)

Vay es HAyer@ vay

Vayn yekel mez tarela
mer Azg@ torrats urishi mogonats kronnern enq pashtum


Hayyy Huyyyy

#9 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 10 September 2003 - 01:14 AM

It started by Luther because supposedly he disagreed with the Roman Catholic church and not the armenian church

And since the Armenian Apostolic and Roman Catholic churches are supposed to be 90% the same, I suppose there probably is a lot he could've disagreed with in the Armenian church!
Saints, for example - I believe Protestants reject the notion of saints. Or was it just the Puritans? Anyway - I don't think you even have to go through his 95 Theses and look up each one to see if it could be applied to the Armenian Apostolic church as well.

#10 America-Hye

America-Hye

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts

Posted 10 September 2003 - 01:41 AM

Protestantism was first founded about 500 years before Luther by you guessed it, ARMENIANS. The Tondrakians were an offshoot of the Paulicians who took hold in Armenia. Sempad Zarehavan was their leader.

#11 America-Hye

America-Hye

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts

Posted 10 September 2003 - 02:01 AM

The first organized latter-day Protestant Church was founded in 1846 in Pera, a section of Istambul by Armenians converted to Protestantism by Western missionaries. They proceeded to build their own church building.

#12 axel

axel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Location:Europe

Posted 10 September 2003 - 02:16 AM

since the Armenian Apostolic and Roman Catholic churches are supposed to be 90% the same


this is totally untrue.

Protestantism is a rationalistic and humanistic response to the Roman Catholic church deviations, themselves induced by rationalism (Thomas d'Aquin...).


The following article outlines some elements of protestantism.
__________________________________________________________________

II. Protestant Ethos.

(...)

A. Humanism/ Individualism/ Secularism
The first characteristic of the Protestant Worldview is that it is Humanistic.

Now for conservative Protestants this statement will come as quite a shock, and no doubt they would hotly dispute it -- but the statement is an historic truth as well as an observable fact. Protestantism was birthed out of and became the religious expression of the humanism of the Renaissance, and as Frank Schaeffer has put it: it has been the engine of the Secularization of Western Culture. Humanism is characterized by its idealization of individual autonomy and it promulgation of secularization. Church authority was rejected in favor of the subjective judgment of the individual. The idea of a Christian nation was replaced with the concept of separation of Church and state -- and for those who would argue that this was a later development, while it is true that Luther and Calvin saw no need for the separation of Church and State (because they were in power) the earliest Anabaptists championed this from the beginning.

What is amazing is how conservative Protestants have viewed humanism and secularization as a foreign invader that is completely at odds with their faith -- when in fact it is the fruit of their own intellectual wombs.

(...)

B. Modernism.
The second chief characteristic of Protestantism is Modernism.

From the very beginning Protestantism has been marked by a complete contempt for ancient Christianity and Tradition. It must be conceded that Protestantism was not without justification in protesting the form of tradition that it was confronting -- because far from being faithful to Ancient Christianity, Papism was itself an innovation. But rather than return to the authentic Christianity of Orthodoxy, Protestantism sought to remedy the situation by ostensibly returning to the ancient purity of the Scriptures, but in reality it was simply replacing the arbitrariness of a single pope with democratic papism -- in which each individual was his own infallible pope -- receiving direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Protestants claimed that they held Scripture to be the only authority, and rejected the interpretations of the Fathers whenever they contradicted the Scriptures -- but in reality they were really placing their interpretations of the Scriptures above that of the Fathers, and in essence saying that when the Fathers contradict their individual interpretations -- their interpretations are to be taken as more authoritative.

In its fight against Romanism, Protestantism sought to discredit all the ancient wisdom of the Church. The previous period was termed pejoratively as "the dark ages." "New" became synonymous with "good"; "Newer" with better; and "New and Improved" as better still. "Change" is used almost like a magic amulet, that justifies whatever it is associated with. The ancient Christian view was that novelty and innovation were absolute proofs of error, but in Protestantism this was turned on its head to the point that innovation is to them proof of truth. While Protestants attacked (often with justification) the Roman Tradition for its post apostolic additions -- they developed new Traditions at a rate that would make any Papist's head spin.

At heart, Modernism is not really at war with the past nearly so much as it is at war with God.

Modernism is simply the lever with which Humanists and Secularists have sought to unseat God from His throne and place man in His stead.

The Secular Humanism that conservative Protestants view as their mortal enemy is simply a more highly developed form of Protestantism. The pietist Protestantism of the past has now outlived its usefulness for the Secularization process, and so has been discarded by the more advanced Protestant Secularists.

(...)

source: http://www.orthodox....hodox-mind.html

#13 Arad9

Arad9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 10 September 2003 - 07:50 PM

First of all to mosjan and harout what are you guys saying???

Supposedly Luther wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church because they were selling indulgances for the remission of sins And so on. what does that have to do with the Armenian church? That was his excuse for bringing about a new gospel and new teaching and new authority. If you want be a so called reformer in the Armenian Church, don’t try to change the teachings of the Armenian Church just because your personal interpretation doesn’t match that of the Church. Martin Luther was not a reformer but a Protestant he had a new gospel and a new teaching that was not taught by any church throughout history. Not even the Paulicians and Tondrakians taught what Luther taught. We can bring protestant all the way back to moses in the old testament when people were rebelling against the authority of Moses while crossing the Red Sea, they were Protestants. But we are not talking about just any Protestant, we are talking about the Protestants we have today in the Armenian Church.

#14 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 12 September 2003 - 09:39 AM

First of all to mosjan and harout what are you guys saying???

Supposedly Luther wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church because they were selling indulgances for the remission of sins And so on. what does that have to do with the Armenian church? That was his excuse for bringing about a new gospel and new teaching and new authority. If you want be a so called reformer in the Armenian Church, don’t try to change the teachings of the Armenian Church just because your personal interpretation doesn’t match that of the Church. Martin Luther was not a reformer but a Protestant he had a new gospel and a new teaching that was not taught by any church throughout history. Not even the Paulicians and Tondrakians taught what Luther taught. We can bring protestant all the way back to moses in the old testament when people were rebelling against the authority of Moses while crossing the Red Sea, they were Protestants. But we are not talking about just any Protestant, we are talking about the Protestants we have today in the Armenian Church.

What means "Armenian Church?" Could someone explain it? Is it something that Jesus Christ has established?

What are the teachings of Armenian Church? Does it teach something other than what Christ and apostles have taught?

#15 Arad9

Arad9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 11:21 PM

The Armenian Church is the church that Jesus established by sending his Apostles, and it’s the church that Armenians as a whole accepted. What they accepted was the Lusavorchagan Church, it’s the same church that we have today.

"What are the teachings of Armenian Church? Does it teach something other than what Christ and apostles have taught?"

Mainly, the teachings of the church are the same as that of Christ and the Apostles. But what many people do is take the Bible (which is the teaching of the Apostles and Jesus) and start to interpret it the way they want and that’s why you have over 33,000 deferent Protestant churches. The Armenian Church is our authority for doctrinal teachings. They were there before we had the Bible. They have the true teachings.
as Paul would say
1 Timothy 3:15 the church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

#16 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 13 September 2003 - 10:18 AM

Dear Arad,

Jesus Christ has not established an Armenian Church or Russian Church or Georgian Church or a Greek one. The scripture clearly says that Christ has established His Church:

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” [Matthew 16:13-20]

Therefore there should exist only one Church which should be called Christ’s Church.

The Armenian Church is not an authority for “Doctrinal” teachings – there are not even 5 clergy in what is called Armenian Church who are qualified to teach anything other than how to make money. Christianity is not about “Doctrines” but about the faith in Jesus Christ being the living Son of God and the Savor – something that is missing in the Armenian Church overall. Doctrines belong to Ministries of Foreign Affairs and so on but not to Churches.

There is no need to interpret the New Testament - it is very clear. What needs to be done by the so-called Christians is to live by it and not to turn it into a cheap tool of propaganda, into a xenophobic “Doctrine,” money-making machine, tool for the enslavement for an entire people, etc, while driving Christ out.

Also, Christ has not appointed anyone as the “head” of the Church and has clearly assigned only Himself on such capacity. Moreover, Christ has defined the Church as a gathering of three people who speak in His name. Therefore, He has sanctioned not just “33,000 different Protestant Churches” but up to two billion Churches (assuming that there are 6 billion people on the earth.) So has traditionally been the structure of the Armenian Church, btw. Catholicos has been a symbolic figure with no executive power. Each patriarchates remains as an autonomous entity even to this day. However, executive power has been exerciseded by the Catholicos since the times of Russian colonization and with the help of the Russian government.

Furthermore, Armenian Church has always been the instrument of foreign powers (invaders of Armenia) and has been a political rather than a spiritual establishment. These days it also has a socio-cultural significance. To this day, the Armenian Church serves foreign powers rather than the Good Lord, while the head of the Armenian Church is a well recognized criminal and Mafioso instilled on the throne by a well-known Armenian philanthropist.

The Armenian Church has not been there before we had Bible. I assume you are referring to the Armenian translation of the Bible. Prior to Mashtots, Syriaic version of the Bible has been used in the Armenian Church. The Old Testament has been finalized sometime around the 400 B.C. while the New Testament has been finalized at about or before 70 A.D (my dates may be somewhat off.) The Armenian Church as we know it has been established some time between 270A.D. to 315A.D. (the referenced dates are approximate.) And it is nothing but a heresy to call it “Lusavorchagan Church.”

The only measure for “true teachings” is the Bible itself.

Your quote from Timothy 3:15 doesn’t serve you well. In fact it points to the living God as the owner of the Church.

It is also clear that in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which has been written some time prior to 63 A.D., Paul is speaking about the traditions that have existed amongst the first Christians who happed to be non-Armenians.

Edited by MJ, 18 September 2003 - 09:22 PM.


#17 America-Hye

America-Hye

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 10:30 AM

Thank you MJ for your intelligent answer. It is analytical thinking like yours that will save our national Church and our nation. The best thing that we Armenians have going for us is our intellect. ROA is basically a rock-strewn land with no ocean outlet, little agricultural land and few natural resources.

#18 Arad9

Arad9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 02:29 PM

mj quote in black arad in red

Jesus Christ has not established an Armenian Church or Russian Church or Georgian Church or a Greek one. The scripture clearly says that Christ has established His Church:
are you saying that Jesus didn’t establish the Armenian Church?
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” [Matthew 16:13-20]
did Satan overpower the church?
Therefore there should exist only one Church which should be called Christ’s Church.
Don’t you agree to hold on to things that Christ past on to the Church and not add new teachings?

The Armenian Church is not an authority for “Doctrinal” teachings – there are not even 5 clergy in what is called Armenian Church who are qualified to teach anything other than how to make money. Christianity is not about “Doctrines” but about the faith in Jesus Christ being the leaving Son of God and the Savor – something that is missing in the Armenian Church overall. Doctrines belong to Ministries of Foreign Affairs and so on but not to Churches.
You seem pretty hostile against your mother church.
I know it’s not as simple as you try to make it when you say just believe that means different thing to different people. For example there are people who believe but don’t believe Jesus is God, there are people that say you have to speak in tongues to be saved, there are people that say once saved always saved I could keep going these are major issues. Essential issues


There is no need to interpret the New Testament - it is very clear. What needs to be done by the so-called Christians is to live by it and not to turn it into a cheap tool of propaganda, into a xenophobic “Doctrine,” money-making machine, tool for the enslavement for an entire people, etc, while driving Christ out.

Also, Christ has not appointed anyone as the “head” of the Church and has clearly assigned only Himself on such capacity. Moreover, Christ has defined the Church as a gathering of three people who speak in His name.
Can you show us where you got that? I don’t believe that you can that is what I meant by coming up with new teaching that were never taught by any church for 1500 years and Jesus according to the verse you quoted can’t overthrow the church.
Therefore, He has sanctioned not just “33,000 different Protestant Churches” but up to two billion Churches (assuming that there are 6 billion people on the earth.) So has traditionally been the structure of the Armenian Church, btw. Catholicos has been a symbolic figure with no executive power. Each patriarchates remains as an autonomous entity even to this day. However, executive power has been exerciseded by the Catholicos since the times of Russian colonization and with the help of the Russian government.
Again you are building on a lie that you heard nowhere it says the church is where two or three are gathered.

Furthermore, Armenian Church has always been the instrument of foreign powers (invaders of Armenia) and has been a political rather than a spiritual establishment. These days it also has a socio-cultural significance. To this day, the Armenian Church serves foreign powers rather than the Good Lord, while the head of the Armenian Church is a well recognized criminal and Mafioso instilled on the throne by a well-known Armenian philanthropist.
The Armenian Church is all about God. But you can’t understand. I don’t have a problem with reforming the church but when people who are trying to change the teachings and the traditions then this is why this whole discussion started Marten Luther was a man like you. When the roman catholic church didn’t fit his teaching he protested and used the excuse that the Church leaders were corrupt so he started his own new teachings that were never taught by any church, here you are a convert to that religion.
Apperently you don’t understand what the armenian church is and
The Armenian Church has not been there before we had Bible. I assume you are referring to the Armenian translation of the Bible. Prior to Mashtots, Syriaic version of the Bible has been used in the Armenian Church. The Old Testament has been finalized sometime around the 400 B.C. while the New Testament has been finalized at about or before 70 A.D (my dates may be somewhat off.) The Armenian Church as we know it has been established some time between 270A.D. to 315A.D. (the referenced dates are approximate.) And it is nothing but a heresy to call it “Lusavorchagan Church.”

I’m referring to the books of the bible were not canonized until around 400ad otherwise nobody new which books belong in the bible until around 400ad, and it was through church councils that we know what is the bible.
The only measure for “true teachings” is the Bible itself.
well then I guess no one had true teaching until the church decided which books belong in the bible according to you.
Your quote from Timothy 3:15 doesn’t serve you well. In fact it points to the leaving God as the owner of the Church.
It was the church that is the pillar for truth not a book since the early church teaching were passed on by Jesus orally. Jesus didn’t write a book to the disciples.
We in the Armenian church are building on the teaching of the apostles
Eph2: 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

It is also clear that in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which has been written some time prior to 63 A.D., Paul is speaking about the traditions that have existed amongst the first Christians who happed to be non-Armenians.
Maybe not as a nation but we were there from the beginning. Our teaching are the same as the ones from the beginning.
  • onjig likes this

#19 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 13 September 2003 - 04:20 PM

Arad,

Have you ever read the Bible or are you narrating from some book about the Bible you recently have read?

Also, thank you for thinking so highly of me but it would suffice if you and me could understand the Bible properly before manifesting ourselves as teachers. (The first step, obviously, would be reading it.)

#20 Arad9

Arad9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 05:32 PM

MJ
Why are you judging ?I've read the bible many times. Iquoted 1Tim3:15 explain who is the Pillar is it a book or a church?
when i ask you where did you get your defenition of a church ?you apearently just heared someone say when two or three are gathered in my name, and you are repeating them and you are building doctorine on it.
How would you know if you understand the bible right? there are 33000 churches that say they believe the bible and yet disagree on major issues.
you should understand history you'll see that you have new teachings that were never taught by any church for 1500years I'm simply holding on to the faith that was passed on by jesus to the disciples to the armenians.
Most people that judge the Armenian Church is because they don't understand it.
  • onjig likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users