Russia is getting their act together, unlike much of the world.

I don’t know if it was entirely deliberate, but Russia is now set up perfectly as the Holy Warriors of God tearing down the obviously-satanic globobomo.

Do not participate. 1 out of 6 Russians and their allies survive the attempt. [Eze 38:2-6 KJV] 2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: 4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts [of armour, even] a great company [with] bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords: 5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: 6 Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: [and] many people with thee.

[Eze 39:1-2 KJV] 1 Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: 2 And I will turn thee back, and LEAVE BUT THE SIXTH PART OF THEE, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:

No point disputing the possibility; it could be It. Especially in light of my own experience coming out of ROCOR.

None of us know the exact date or time.

Yes, and it’s further complicated by satan continually trying to pull it off, and getting beat back over and over. No denying though there’s something *really imminent* about it, these days.

Something that always sticks with me is the thought that the 'big evil' that people fight against can be seemingly pinned on so many groups. Yeah I'm fully aware of the JQ, but you hear interesting things about the Masons, knights templar, Jesuits, and all the various other powerbrokers around the world. None of these groups are all powerful and capable of pulling off 1,000 year+ grand conspiracies. Ephesians 6:12 comes to mind. >For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

There’s not the least sliver of doubt in my mind all these orgs are demon-driven, and the jews are basically the body of satan.

Jews think they are good because they were Chosen. God repeatedly tells them that is not why. You think they can't be Chosen because they're not good. Holiness has nothing to do with being good. Nobody is good. No not one. Being Holy is to be set apart.

Me ? I think no such thing. I have a different Ecclesiology from yours, but I also don’t dispute today’s “jews” are “Chosen” for something …

If you have another candidate, who? Eskimos, Chinese, Apache? There are some African tribes that are Torah observant. I'm not any kind of Jew, real or imposter.

They were Peter, James and John. [Luk 9:27 NKJV] 27 "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God." [Mat 16:28 NKJV] 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." [Mat 17:1-2 NKJV] 1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

Holy Transfiguration was one of the most significant events to the eventual Fall of The West - which wasn’t even noticed by them until some Westerners actually caught wind of what the Orthodox had been saying about St. Gregory Palamas. For centuries it was little more than a minor footnote, a bit of trivia around the “Error of the Greeks”.

Elaborate please. I've heard someone mention St Gregory Palamas but never any detail on this.

Sorry in advance for what might come across like an “effortpoast” - but it’s a joy as far as I’m concerned 😏 Many Orthodox to this day tie the falling away of Rome from the Church Universal, to the Filioque or Papal Supremacy. And while these were indeed the beginning of cracks in the Unity of Christendom, they could in theory at least be workable. But the split was final and irrevocable by the time of the dispute between St. Gregory Palamas, and the monk Barlaam, whose impiety stemmed from his attempt to dispute Hesychasm. Because, in the process, he made an extreme Theological assertion; that is, that the Light beheld on Mt. Tabor by Sts. James, Peter, and John, was not the Uncreated Light, but rather, a mere creation. In doing so, Barlaam cemented within the Bosom of The West a direct Theological *change* to the Faith-Once-Held-By-All. From this, the Western teaching of “Created Grace” spilled forth throughout all the land, largely unnoticed outside the Orthodox Lands, and a rift betwixt the two had been set. It is logically impossible after that to jerry-rig the Communions back together. Flat-denying the Grace of God is an Uncreated Energy of God, represents the kind of change no hemming, hawing and handwaving can possibly fix.

Oh no, I did not know that! How could God's Grace be a created thing? Does it not just flow from God Himself? I've not ever heard of this before.

In his zeal to justify his attack of Traditional Orthodox Monasticism, Barlaam was trying to prove that God is “unknowable” in Essence (which is true). So when the Holy Transfiguration was brought up, St. Gregory argued that - while Man indeed cannot know the Essence of God, through Divine Grace we are invited in Christ to participate in His Energies - which are Divine Attributes God can and often has revealed to us - and therefore can be known - by being invited in. This has been the whole justification for Orthodox Monasticism since before Egypt; that devoting oneself wholly to this practice (Hesychasm) is indeed a worthy and God-pleasing exercise. Barlaam was denying this - and did so so overzealously, that he made a Theological change. And that wouldn’t have been such a problem if it didn’t immediately become Rome’s official position !! One guy can be wrong, but all of Rome ?!

But why would Rome adopt something so obviously wrong? Could there be more to it than this? I guess I'm looking for some sort of logical reason why Rome would think this is ok and there was no dissenting opinions on the matter.

Probably just because there were no dissenting opinions...

But why weren't there any?

Sweet summer child, they burned people for disagreeing too much.

In fairness to the Latins, very often in The West the lion’s share of resposibility for maintaining Social Order fell on their Hierarchy; it didn’t take long for them to realize that big outward displays of disagreement often entailed parallel explosions of chaos. I think this was typically (not always) the deciding factor in whether or not strict prosecution was appropriate.

Yes, lets blame the Gnostics.

In terms of Social Order, it’s on about the same level as the “ideological” difference between the Union and the Confederacy. I know which team I’d have been rooting for, but eventually the actual shooting stops.

And lest the wider point disappear behind this concession; Traditional Ecclesiology holds that the True Church, the very Body of Christ, *will not* promulgate errors and heresies - such a belief is indeed a facet of the Deposit of Faith. As such, if Rome were correct regarding Created Grace and the rejection of Hesychasm, it implies the entire shared ancient Tradition of the United Church was either in error (not possible), or that Heychasm and Uncreated Grace hadn’t *really* been part of The Deposit. So of course they had to go with that, while the entire Christian East preserved what obviously *is and has always been* the teaching of the Church on the subject. In accordance with the aforementioned belief that the True Church will not promulgate error - it’s obvious to the Orthodox that Rome left the Church. And as such, the events that have followed over the centuries in The West are viewed through that lens. This has positively enormous geopolitical implications, which very often don’t even warrant the slightest mention in The West. Why would it ?

How do you have Grace without sin?

Divine Grace is an eternal attribute of the Uncreated Energies of God - Who is the same today, yesterday and for all time. Does God change because Man sins? No, rather Man is changed by being taken up into God’s Grace - having Union with Him by Faith.

Are you saying there has always been sin or you can somehow have Grace without sin?

how do you read what he wrote and assume that?

How can you have Grace without sin? He's not answering the question. He just reiterated that Grace has always been.

I did in fact answer the question; even in a state of sinlessness Man experienced Union with God by Faith. Yet fallen sinful Man understands this as Divine Grace, because He did not simply cast us out into outer darkness - but rather, sent His Son to take on *our* Nature and join it to Him.

How do you have Grace before sin?

You’re answering your own question, in the very way you pose it; > How do *you have Grace* without sin? I, personally, do not; if not for my sin, I’d never have experienced the Grace of God.

We don't worship Grace, right? God is not His Grace. Grace is the Gift of God. It's freely given to us, BUT it's not cheap. God doesn't have it on tap. The Price was Lamb's Blood. Adam didn't have Grace. Abraham, David, Moses didn't have Grace. It hadn't been purchased yet. They looked forward to their Savior as we look back and remember what He did. [Gen 22:8 KJV] 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will PROVIDE HIMSELF A LAMB for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. ... and so He did provide Himself. [Jhn 1:29 KJV] 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Roman Catholicism in modern times has taken to specifying a “part” of God - ie the Sacred Heart for instance - and adoring that, “exclusively“. In my mind that’s a real-world example of what you’re talking about, like selecting out the Grace of God for worship. That’s never been a thing in Orthodoxy, to my awareness. Divine Grace has specific doctrinal significance because the Church teaches we’re “saved by Grace, through Faith”, and we understand what than means in accordance with the Tradition we’ve received. Such doctrinal specificity does not suggest to the Orthodox that we ought to single-it-out for worship, however.

The Orthodox Church is the only church to commune infants on an institutional level. A practice that was universal in the first millennium.

Southern Baptists are very adamant about the youth. You can say what you like about Baptists in general, lack of tradition, being extremely against church authority, how bad Darbyism took root in the church, or whatever else but you can't deny that they don't aggressively submerge children in Biblical teachings from basically the moment they can talk. I was shocked at how lack luster other Protestant church's youth programs are.

>Southern Baptists...aggressively submerge children in Biblical teachings from basically the moment they can talk. You got that right. Some of the more evangelical charismatic denominations have the cultural and knowledge formation down very well. It's "simple", but extremely effective to teach a strong framework using nothing but Bible stories, scripture, etc. Cradle Catholic and Orthodox have a less explicit formation process for kids in the church, although RCC has fixed that with confirmation and the EO side has a lot of implicit stuff from church fathers and such.