Having entered the Christmas season, we ask those who find the work of the Mystagogy Resource Center beneficial to them to help us continue our work with a generous financial gift as you are able. As an incentive, we are offering the following booklet.

In 1909 the German philosopher Arthur Drews wrote a book called "The Myth of Christ", which New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has called "arguably the most influential mythicist book ever produced," arguing that Jesus Christ never existed and was simply a myth influenced by more ancient myths. The reason this book was so influential was because Vladimir Lenin read it and was convinced that Jesus never existed, thus justifying his actions in promoting atheism and suppressing the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union. Moreover, the ideologues of the Third Reich would go on to implement the views of Drews to create a new "Aryan religion," viewing Jesus as an Aryan figure fighting against Jewish materialism. 

Due to the tremendous influence of this book in his time, George Florovsky viewed the arguments presented therein as very weak and easily refutable, which led him to write a refutation of this text which was published in Russian by the YMCA Press in Paris in 1929. This apologetic brochure titled "Did Christ Live? Historical Evidence of Christ" was one of the first texts of his published to promote his Neopatristic Synthesis, bringing the patristic heritage to modern historical and cultural conditions. With the revival of these views among some in our time, this text is as relevant today as it was when it was written. 

Never before published in English, it is now available for anyone who donates at least $20 to the Mystagogy Resource Center upon request (please specify in your donation that you want the book). Thank you.



April 6, 2019

The Romiosini of 1821 and the Great Powers (11 of 11)

Papa-Vlachavas as depicted at the Great Meteoron Monastery

...continued from part ten.

35. The Method is Simple

The method is simple. First the distinction of Kapodistrias between Greece, Macedonia and Epirus is accepted. At the same time the inhabitants of Greece are pressed through agents to accept that they are not Romans or Byzantines, but only Greeks, in order not to claim Constantinople as their own, nor hold on to Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace. This is why the Bulgarians maintain that when they came to the Balkans, Thrace was Roman or Byzantine and not Greek. Thus they maintain that since the Greeks aren't Byzantines, they wrongly occupy a portion of Thrace.

And Yugoslavia established the so-called Macedonian Democracy as a state with its capital in Skopje, and they maintain that the Greeks wrongly occupy a portion of Macedonia, which belongs not to the Greeks, but to the Macedonians.

Based on the same arguments the Greeks wrongly occupy a portion of Epirus.

It is clearly seen by these positions the expansive plan of the Russians through the Bulgarians and the Yugoslavians, which was established in 1828 on the basis of a satanic distortion of the proposal of Kapodistrias.

36. The Turks Use the Same Design

In the same exact way it is maintained by the Turks that they took Cyprus, the Aegean and Thrace not from Greece, but from the Romans or Byzantines.

They repeatedly stress everywhere that the Greeks never occupied these places before 1912. Therefore the Greeks wrongly occupy the Aegean and Thrace and they wrongly claim Cyprus. All the neighbors of Greece without exception maintain that the "Greeks" were not liberated, but they occupied the Aegean, Thrace, Macedonia and Epirus. And they believe this on the basis of the distinction between "Greeks" and "Byzantines", that is Romans. Sometimes also it is maintained that the beginning of the liberation of Greece was the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.

37. Traitors, Illiterates or Deranged?

It must be very clear to those who maintain that there are only Greeks and not Romans or Byzantines, and only Hellenism and not Romiosini, or those who naively or deliberately maintain that Romiosini began with the Turkish occupation and not Old and New Rome. Whoever does not identify themselves with the Nation, that had as its capital Constantinople New Rome, is either illiterate, or a traitor, or deranged, since they do not recognize or they reject the modest rights and interests of the nation.

Athanasios Diakos as depicted by Photios Kontoglou

38. The Response of Papa-Vlachavas and Athanasios Diakos

In closing we have come to the question: "Was the sacrifice of 1821 for the Greece of the Great Powers and the Marxists of Greece or was it for Romiosini?"

Let us hear the response of Papa-Vlachavas and Athanasios Diakos. To the threats of the Turks that if they did not become Turks they would be tortured to death, they responded with the slogan of Romiosini: "I was born a Roman, a Roman I will die."

39. Neither Illiterate nor Deranged, But Traitors

In the consciousness of the people, Romiosini is identified with Hellenism. But now it has become apparent who repeatedly used the name Romiosini, but they separated it from Byzantium, as well as Roman and Byzantine, as if they were not the same thing, as if they were not a nation that founded Constantinople and built Hagia Sophia. This is once again precisely the design that benefits Russia. The promoters of this design are neither illiterate nor deranged. They are traitors of the sacrifice of 1821 on behalf of Romiosini.


BECOME A PATREON OR PAYPAL SUBSCRIBER