Chalcedon

Pausanias gives a list of their names with the places they came from, drawn from a poem called the Great Eoiae.

Marmax, Alcathus, Euryalos, Eurymachos, Crotolos, Acreus, Cepetos, Lycurgos, Lasios, Chalcedon, Tricolonos, Aristomachos, Prius, Pelagon, Aeolios, Cronios, Erythrus, and Ionius.

The number varies in different versions, from 12 to 18 or more, and according to some later accounts, Oinomios cut off the heads of the suitors he killed and nailed them up over the door of his palace as a warning to others.

Pausanias says that a mound said to be the tomb of the suitors was still shown in his day.

But if we adopt a universal empiricism, then mathematics will be included.

Now, If this science is in contradiction with a reason that admits only empirical principles, as it inevitably is in the antimony in which mathematics prove the infinite divisibility of space which empiricism cannot admit, then the greatest possible evidence of demonstration is in manifest contradiction with the alleged conclusions from experience, and we are driven to ask, like Chalcedon's blind patient, which deceives me, sight or touch? for empiricism is based on a necessity felt, rationalism on a necessity seen.

And thus universal empiricism reveals itself as absolute skepticism.

It is erroneous to attribute this in such an unqualified sense to Hume, since he left at least one certain touchstone, which can only be found in a priori principles, although experience consists not only of feelings, but also of judgments.

It is the, oh yes.

It is the traders from the ancient city of Chalcedon who sell a rare quartz-like gemstone used for seals of state rituals to appease the restless dead.

Okay, from the witcher who repeats the restless dead, the people who made those, those could be Kaldonai, could still be that long-gone people with treasure, or it could be something else entirely unique.

What are Kaldonai?

It's a power move.

I'm up for Sandra's if you both think it's Sandra's.

I didn't quite like it because her city was three syllables, like Chalcedon or something? Well, I thought Chalcedon is actually

a stone.

I guess on the micro, I'll give two examples, and then we can, God willing, we can discuss it.

First, I would say, and maybe even a third if we can get to one ecclesial claim, but I would say one is Isaiah 19, the prophecies said by the major prophet Isaiah regarding the church in Egypt and the altar as a sign to the Lord forever in the land of Mizraim or Egypt, and then obviously the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, so issues regarding Christology.

And then one claim on ecclesial claims, I'm a big fan of Eric Ybarra,

and

I think one of his arguments he makes is that even though many people fought against papal claims.

The fact that the claims were present in principle is a proof for the Catholic Church.

For us in the Oriental Orthodox sphere, we have kind of a unique position because the cutoff is so early at Chalcedon.

I would argue that this idea of the principle being present, whether that be with things like the Pope Stephen stuff, whether that be Pope Victor, whatever it is, I would argue that these aren't even the principle being present.

So you think of the great creedal heritage that begins with Nicaea, the affirmation that God is triune.

And then the Chalcedonian, Chalcedon, people describe it different ways.

I usually say Chalcedon, Chalcedonian definition in 451 that gives us really The summary of who Jesus is.

So when we say, what's the Bible saying who Jesus is? Well, Jesus of Nazareth, which picks up the historic individual that lived 2,000 years ago, right? We have in Matthew and Luke the recount of his birth.

The announcement of it, and then obviously in Luke's gospel to Mary and the birth, Jesus of Nazareth is a human.

And Christianity was so widely spread by the fourth century, there were bound to be variations.

So the bishops assembled in Nicaea duly worked out a creed, which is indeed the Christian creed, I believe in one God, and with only a very slight change of warning confirmed at Chalcedon in 451, which was the major point at which Christianity became a very, very much more dominant religion to the exclusion of pagan observance.

In 381, there'd been another very important council in Constantinople, which banned the pagan worship.

Now, the real problem is that because the Christians were divided right through the fourth century, until 381, the council of Constantinople, there really was no agreement.

I discussed that in my thesis.

It's basically one of the derivation of the evolution of Christianity before Chalcedonia that was then declared by the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century.

And the other one is the official doctrine and Christological doctrine of the Church of Persia, which was an historian church and which was also not recognized by Constantinople after the fifth century.

So they were both by itself very interesting, like non, I would say, imperial, I mean, The Nestorian Church, which is the church of the Persian side, was an imperial church, even though we're not talking about a Christian empire.

There was a huge Christian presence and they recognized it in the early 5th century.

For the Mephisid Church in the Roman Empire, the situation is more interesting in my opinion, because it's officially an heretic church and it was officially not only not recognized, there were many... active implementation of orthodoxy throughout the 5th and the 6th century especially in which like the orthodox bishop would like when I mean orthodox the orthodoxy in the period was the Chalcedonian orthodoxy they would go in the provinces and force conversion of those bishops who didn't accept Chalcedon well this happened in the Tour of Dean to an extent but at the same time we have a lot of imperial patronage to some of the most important monasteries which does go in the other direction historically speaking so we have a very ambiguous relationship of the Constantinopolitan center with the region.

And this was one of the main points of interest of the thesis, because why would you found actively a region which is officially putting you in discussion and your power? Because as we know, in the Eastern Roman Empire, the church is one of the pillars of the power of the emperor and it gives it its rightfulness and of his role.

And so I do think and I do discuss in my thesis that there was a compromise done in especially by Justinian in Justinian time and Anastasios before him, which basically held an unofficial relationship, diplomatical relationship with this ecclesiastical network because it was controlling the frontier to some extent.