And I omitted it because it was irrelevant to the discussion on Athansius influence on the Orthodox Church and it was a opinion.
Goodness, if a bishop is guilty of resorting to bribery and violence is "unfair judgment" then the line separating virtue from vice is completely obliterated.
The opinion was also that he might not have been guilty of those charges against him.
The judgment the historian were disputing were the sources
However, there are also many modern historians who object to this view and point out that such hostile attitude towards Athanasius is based on an unfair judgment of historical sources.
It seems you have a reading comprehension problem.
I was making (and have made) is that there were Greek church fathers who held Proto-Protestant views I would like to see exactly what Athanasius wrote regrading the OT. And even if it is true that he believed that only Hebrew scriptures were 'true' that doesn't make him "proto-Protestant" because his theology was not "proto-Protestant." Jerome was also fooled by the rabbis that the "true" OT was the one they had and not the one the Apostles used. That doesn't make him "proto-Protestant."
The fact is that he held the Apocrypha to be of a secondary nature (non-Canonical) because they were not written in Hebrew (as did Jerome, and later Luther and the other Protestants)
There were Greek Church Fathers who believed that even those who end up in hell will eventually be redeemed (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen), those who believed that Mary was not sinless (St. John Chrysostom), who refused the Revelation of St. John as canonical (lots of them, including the 9th century John of Damascus), etc. Saint Augustine retracted many of his beliefs at the end of his life, etc.
And so?
You first denied that Athanasius was a 'Greek' Father.
Protestants don't care about any Church Fathers, Greek or Latin, it is you guys who make a big deal over them.
All you have shown is why we put so little confidence in them.
You ignore the fact that an opinion of one Church father means nothing as far as the Church is concerned, unless the Church as a whole reaches a consensus that the teaching is correct.
No, I am not ignoring that fact, what I am stating is that the Protestant views on many issues had Greek Father support.
It is this consensus patrium that has been the guiding tradition of entire Church in the first millennium and certainly for the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since then. That was not the question, the question was where does it say that was the only reason he was well respected by the Orthodox faith As good as the only one. There were others who proposed the same or very closely the same canon and in that he was not unique. There was no imminent danger for the Church or any pressure to mean a deadline to pronounce the canon after 300 years of searching. Arain heresy was very much the watershed that could have taken the Church in a completely wrong direction, was widespread and was supported by many bishops and even the Roman Emperor. Defeating Arian heresy and Athanasius' contribution in defeating it by far outweighs anything esle he has done.
Well, that is your opinion, because what was regarded as a major contribution by Athanasius by the Orthodox source I cited, was his listing of the Canonical books as well as his defense of the Trintiy.
Moreover, it seems that Athansasius' view on the Apocrypha, as being less then Canonical is shared by Orthodox scholars... http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=39 And the sentence before that says "These [deutero-canonical books] were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be genuine parts of Scripture." So, what this OCA site is saying is that (without proof of course) that 'most Orthodox scholars' do not believe what the Church believes.
Well, he is from your Orthodox Church.
Maybe you have another heretic loose!
Coming from the so-called OCA, a make-believe "Orthodox Church" infected with scores of Protestant converts, it does't surprise me.
LOL!
Maybe you better inform someone of this heresy!
You seem to have a knack for using peripheral, questionable, or unreliable sources, rather than genuine ones that have been around for the longest time. And GOARCH is not one of them. GOARCH didn't exist until the 1920 and was founded by a heretic, mason-Ecumenical Patriarch who all on his own "recognized" Anglican orders as "valid" and proclaimed the "union" between the Orthodox and Anglican communities. Luckily, GOARCH has since then cleaned up its shameful roots.
And you seem to try to wiggle out of anything that goes against your own personal opinions.
I cited a legitimate Orthodox source that states that most Orthodox scholars reject the Apocrypha as Canonical.
It seems that your 'church' has as much confusion in it as the Protestant ones regarding doctrinal issues.
The fact is that the Protestant views are early views on the Canon and Sola Scriptura that were put forth by Greek Fathers, Athansisus and Chrysostom.
I would say it is you who has a problem with comprehension, reading or otherwise, because "unfair judgment" is someone's judgment and as such is not fitting material for factual discussions.
The fact is that he held the Apocrypha to be of a secondary nature (non-Canonical) because they were not written in Hebrew (as did Jerome, and later Luther and the other Protestants)
Okay, I admit that you have presented enough on this for me to believe that you have something there. Having been Orthodox one way or another all my life, I can honestly say that this is something utterly unknown and new to me, if it indeed true, as it seems to be. The story with Jerome, on the other hand, is well known.
Alexandria has a large number of Jews and it is possible that Athanasius was also influenced by the rabbis, as Jerome was, to reject the OT used by the Apostles and embrace only the Palestinian version of the OT.
For my part I have written to the OCA that claims "most Orthodox scholars" supporting this view. I will also inform other points of contact bringing that to their attention, as it is contrary to the extant Orthodox scripture and teaching.
The books that comprise Orthodox Bible include the deutero-canonical books, which are regarded as Scripture, and all Scripture is profittable...so there is no 'lesser' scripture, as there could be no lesser word of God.
If a majority (which has yet to be documented) Orthodox scholars truly believe they are not, then they do not believe their own Bible and the Church!
And so?
It must be that comprehension issue agian! And so, individual fathers did not always teach what the Church as a whole taught. As long as they deferred to the official doctrine, they were free to speculate, and therefore free to each wrong conclusions.
You first denied that Athanasius was a 'Greek' Father
I don't think I denied that he was Greek, I simply stated that he was a Western Father.
Protestants don't care about any Church Fathers, Greek or Latin, it is you guys who make a big deal over them
Correct. Protestants only care about their own private, man-made theology, based on personal interpretation of the Bible, generally out of context, that is habitually decorated with the Holy Spirit.
The fact is that the Protestant views are early views on the Canon and Sola Scriptura that were put forth by Greek Fathers, Athansisus and Chrysostom
Some of them taught all sorts ofmthings. but none of them put forth the sola scriptura myth.