Tacitus: "They are a primordially duplicitous people..."

Let's start first: in Strabo's account we read that: "...Before the Nativity of Jesus Christ, with the advent of the second century (Armenians who founded themselves on the soil of the Alarodians and became rich at the expense of the Arielians (Midians) Armenians had alienated from Georgia Tao, Speri, Basiani, Arzrum, Kola-Artian, part of Gogarene (Kvemo Kartli). Strabo points out in black and white that until then Armenia was a small country and had enlarged before the birth of Christ, during the reign of kings Artashes and Zareh.

Since then the expression 'Greater Armenia' has appeared. One century later Georgia regained its territories. Over the following centuries it lost it again.

There were periods when Armenia succeeded in reappropriating Georgian territories. As for Persia, its support against the unification of Georgia has always been Armenia. Armenian historian Lazar-Farpetsi (V-VI centuries) provides information that the Persian Shahinshah sent a letter to the Armenian aristocracy: 'Since you are a useful and beloved country for us, we wish you to study our righteous and true religion and adopt it... When you, like us, recognise our true religion, Iberia and Albania will not dare to go against our and your will...".

As we know from historical sources, Greater Armenia has not ethnically existed since the fourth century. In 428 Persia abolished the Armenian kingdom altogether. Instead, the role of the church in the physical life and consciousness of Armenians grew. Persia failed to convert the Armenians to Masdianism, but the Armenian Church obeyed the will of the Persians and adopted monophysitism.

Orthodoxy (Dyophysitism) was unacceptable to the Persians. Persia declared a war to the death against the quite strong Byzantine Empire, it used the Armenian gene in its favour and brilliantly managed to direct it against Iberia, Colchis and Byzantium.

A few words about Armenian Christianity: the faith of the Armenians, the same Hays, was originally based on the teachings of Gregory the Illuminator, who was educated in Cappadocian Caesarea and brought the teachings of Christianity to Armenia during the reign of Trdat in 232. For his aforementioned services he was called the Illuminator in Armenia. But later on Gregory's teachings were only a mask for the Armenian Church Fathers who actually ruled the Armenian kingdom.

At the First Ecumenical Council in 325, which has gone down in history as the Council of Nicaea, a crucial dogmatic question was raised: should the Son of God, who would be equal to Father-God, be recognized as God, or should it be recognized as perfect among the creatures, or God, but unequal to the Father in dignity?

The Orthodox and Ariosians (Arian) took part in the work of the Council. Sozemen wrote: "They (the Orthodox) have from time immemorial forbidden the introduction of innovations in matters of faith; they were the very confessors whose simplicity of rites inspired them to accept the faith of God without guile. The (orthodox) mind resting on this view was in complete obedience to the teaching of Christ, the New Testament. "The mystery of the Holy Trinity surpasses all reason and word and is utterly inaccessible. It is known only by faith. The holy Fathers represented at the Council of Nicaea (the Bishop of Bichvinta (Pisunda) was also present) discussed the hypostasis of the Son of God, the uncertainty of whose meaning was affirmed by Holy Writ: "No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son" (Matthew, II, 27).The Son of God is as perfect a God as the Father: "I and my Father are one" (10, 30). The above words are not to be understood in such a way, that the two natures are one hypostasis, but that "the Son of God is both exactly and completely absent and defends his identity with the Father, the same nature imprinted with the same likeness and has no other image than his own". Thus one essence with the Father! The opposing orthodox camp of Ariosians firmly defended the erroneous idea that: "the Son of God is a creature", "there was a time when there was no Son", "the Son is essentially changeable". At the Council, Euseus of Caesarea presented a creed which, by the grace of the holy Fathers, was almost completely reworked and simplified. "What the three hundred bishops desired was not anything other than the very essence of God, all the more so when in the mind of the Father, endowed with so many and such virtues, the holy Spirit was strengthened to point out to them the will of God" - Constantine the Great.

Of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Church, known as the The First Council of Constantinople (Latin: Concilium Constantinopolitanum) held in 381, we will be guided by the account of Gregory the Theologian, who was personally present at the meeting and took an active part. The only document that was discussed at the Council and subsequently adopted was the perfection of the Nicene Creed. A few minor points were changed in the symbol and it took its final form, the form of the Constantinople symbol.

The Council of Constantinople was convened to confirm the Nicene doctrine and against heretics.

The III Ecumenical Council of Ephesus was convened in 431-449. The anti-orthodox camp was again active and tried to establish that the Son of God was inferior to the Father-God and that there was only one divine nature in him (again they denied the human nature). The Council of Ephesus was called a meeting of robbers, and its result was not grace, but evil. The true Orthodox were humiliated and insulted. Two years passed and. In 451 the Fourth Ecumenical Council was held in Chalcedonia. The Creed of the Council of Constantinople, in spite of the opposition of the heretics, found acceptance.

The main time of the Council was devoted to those writings of the holy Fathers and to the reading of passages from the letters in which the question of the union of the divine and human in the nature of Jesus Christ was defined. On the basis of the thoughts of Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Mediolano and other luminaries of the Church, the assembly presented and affirmed the true "Dogma about the one person and two essences of our God Jesus Christ: "Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, one and the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and true Man, one and the same consisting of a verbal (intelligent) soul and body, one in essence with the Father in divinity and one in essence with us in humanity, like us in everything except sin; begotten of the Father before the ages according to the Godhead, but he also begotten in the last days for our sake and our salvation by Mary the Virgin and the Theotokos according to humanity; the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only begotten, cognisable in two natures (ενδύοφύσεσιν) inseparable, immutable, indivisible, inseparable; the difference of His nature never vanishes from their union, but the properties of each of the two natures are united in one person and one hypostasis so that He is not divided and divided into two persons, but He is the same Son only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; such precisely as the prophets of ancient times spoke of Him, and as Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers passed on to us"-600 holy Fathers, participants in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, have forever sanctified Orthodox theological teaching!

It was this - the last religious definition of the Council of Chalcedon that became the Orthodox creed.

The Council of Chalcedon declared the patriarch of Constantinople to be equal in dignity to the pope. This was such a significant fact, according to which the authority of the Pope was equal to that of the Byzantine Patriarch. On the basis of this ruling, the Orthodox Church was able to defend itself against the pope in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Council of Chalcedon paralysed the ego of the pope.

We have briefly considered the Councils of the Church, which highlighted the true basic meaning of orthodox Christianity. Let us now consider the question of the faith of the Hyksos, the same Armenians. As we have already said, close kinship links the Hyksos with the Persians. The manuscripts of the Armenian historian Sebeos contain information that in the 10s of the VII century, the Persian Shah Khosrov II at the "Council of Persia" (which included representatives of all churches of the Persian Empire, as well as subordinate countries) issued an order according to which all Christians living in the subordinate territories must accept the Armenian faith, a religion!

What does all this mean? And why Armenian Christianity was acceptable to the Persians? The same thing happened again from the 30s of the seventh century - Persian domination in Georgia was replaced by Arab domination. The Arabs conquered both Georgia and Armenia. There is an interesting Armenian story: the founder of Islam, the Prophet Mohammed, signed a treaty with the Armenians, granting them freedom of religion. According to this treaty Armenian priests, princes and also soldiers were exempted from taxes. A peace treaty was concluded with the Armenian Catholicos Sahak III (who is called the Great)!

Thus, at the end of the epoch of Tigranes in Armenia was actually ruled by the church, Echmiadzin (so we can call it conditionally, since there were several residences of Armenian Catholicoses, and they settled in Echmiadzin only in the 15th century thanks to the patronage of Turkish padishahs of Kara-Koyunlu - ed.). Echmiadzin was not happy with difficult situations with strong empires because, unlike Georgia and based on the Armenian character, they would not defend the true religion of Christ with arms. Etchmiadzin, as difficult as it is to realise, "fit" the faith of Christ, cut it to its own measure, like clothes or shoes, and thus avoided discord with big empires. Georgia could do no such thing, for despite the sea of blood in which the country was drowning, it was and will be the true defender of true Orthodox Christianity to the end!

As we have already said, in 428 Persia abolished the Armenian kingdom and annexed it to itself. The Councils of the Church, Council I of Nicaea, Council II of Constantinople, Council III of Ephesus and the last Council IV of Chalcedon, Council V, VI and VII drew a wide boundary between the true faith and heretical monophysitism.

The Monophysites categorically denied the dogma of the two natures of Christ adopted at the Council of Chalcedon. Despite this, the Armenians, haikis, called themselves "Orthodox" (to the delight of the Russian Empire), which by theological and scientific concepts meant the same thing as hereticalism! Monophysitism itself, i.e. the oneness of Christ, was opposed on the basis of its theological teachings to Orthodoxy, Holy Scripture, the Holy Ecumenical Councils and the teachings of the Holy Fathers! It is also considered hypocrisy and a gross lie when a heretical church that insults the Holy Apostolic teaching calls itself "apostolic" - this is not at all acceptable and unacceptable!!!!

In a few words let us touch upon the name of their faith, the origin of the "Gregorians".

As noted above, the Armenian Church adopted this name in the 1930s from the royal court of the Russian Empire, as a sign of great loyalty - they have at all times served all empires to save their own politics and skins. Gregory was a scholar from Cappadocia Caesarea, a Parthian Christian and, according to the Armenians, orthodox (?). In 232 he preached Christianity in the Armenian kingdom (during the reign of Trdat) and converted the king's family, representatives of noble families and some peasants to Christ. But among the Hyksos so strong were their own pagan legends about Anahita, Zbantaradis and Vahak, that Father Gregory encountered great opposition.

But a few centuries later, in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon, in the last years of Emperor Leon I (457-474), there was a totally open revolt of the Monophysite trend in Syria led by a heretical brigand named Barsum. Supposedly Barsum was of Haik nationality. The Armenian population mingled with the Georgian population in Cappadocia, and 2-3 centuries later, i.e. in the VI century, the Armenian population expelled from Cappadocia the Georgian population, as in modern Javakheti! In the following centuries they formed a kingdom in Cilicia.

During the time of Leon I, Zeno (a close relative of the emperor) was appointed governor of Syria. Barsum had a great influence on Zeno, a supporter of the Monophysite trend, and took him under his influence. With Zeno's retinue came to Syria a Monophysite priest, a close relative of Barsum, haik Peter Fullon (Petros Mkatsvreli), later Peter Knapheus, who with the help of Barsum and Zeno became archbishop of Antioch. According to the teachings of Peter Fullon, as a preacher of Monophysite ideology, God the Son suffered as a deity and not as a man! This is totally unacceptable to a true believer, just as it is unacceptable to any conscious person to suffer God. Peter Knapheus condemned the Orthodox and ordered that in the Trisagion ("Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us") the words, "crucify us for us" should be added.

In the Monophysite notion such an addition is possible, because according to their idea, if God the Son suffers as a deity, as they teach, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity (body) in essence is a unity, that is with God the Son God the Father suffers together, the Holy Spirit - the mentioned Monophysite addition expresses the thought, which, as it has already been mentioned, is unacceptable for the true orthodox Christians. It is unacceptable, as the suffering of God is impossible, God the Son suffered as human nature and after suffering, the second nature, existing in it, was filled with divine nature. And ascended into heaven! Approximately after 490-518 Peter Fullon (Peter Knafu) was expelled from Syria, Constantinople and after that he returned to his hearth - Armenia.

In Armenia, after the first Council (Nicaea), as already said, the followers of Ariosians (Arian) gained strength, so that at the time of Peter the spiritual soil of the Armenian people was already saturated with heretical, monophysite sermons, that is why they should not be called Gregorians, their name of nation, if it necessarily should define religion, should come from the name of Perth Fullon, as Petros laid the foundation for the Armenian political ideology of Echmiadzin today.

 The Georgian state has come through a difficult period. When has there not been a difficult period in Georgia?! As has already been said, Persia, with the help of the Armenian Church, tried to influence the Georgian Church.

In 591-615 the catholicos of Georgia was Kirion I (in secular life Svimon), of pure Georgian descent, from the village of Skutri in Javakheti (today this village and its surroundings are populated by Armenians). He received his primary education in Javakheti, and then the ruler sent him to Byzantium with many gifted children to receive a complete education. After returning from Byzantium father Kirion was bishop for 5 years, and then ascended the throne of Catholicos of Kartli. In spite of the strong Persian onslaught, Father Chirion and the Georgian clergy did not betray the precepts of Christ and firmly defended the apostolic teaching and the resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon.

Thus, they so enraged Abraham, the Catholicos of Armenia (Abraham failed to fulfil his promise to the Persians to convert the Georgians to monophysitism), that he cursed the Georgian people, the Georgian church and finally all Armenians who were friends with Georgians, who tied ties of marriage with Georgians, were related to Georgians! The only thing he gave permission for was trade with Georgians: '... Armenians must not have any relations with Georgians after this, not in prayers, not in meals, not in friendship and in bringing up children. Armenians should not dare to go to pray neither to the famous church in Mtskheta, nor to the church in Mangliss, not to allow Georgians to go to our churches, avoid marriages with them, only trade with them as with Jews". Mtskhetis Jvari and Manglisis Jvari mentioned in Abraham's curse are among those churches that Armenians demand!

In a few words let us remember the era of Vakhtang Gorgasal. After Parnavaz the greatest king who unified the Georgian kingdoms and principalities, as well as a strong political figure in the East was the Georgian king Vakhtang I, called Gorgasal. Vakhtang reigned from 446-499. The Council of Chalcedon took place in 451. The Council of Chalcedon definitively tore the mask off the monophysite heretics. During the reign of Vakhtang in Ereti lived governor Varsken and his wife Shushanik. According to historical sources Shushanik must have been an Orthodox Christian, as she had a spiritual mentor - a Georgian named Jakob Khutsesi (Tsurtaveli), who left his remarkable works, and naturally, Armenian pseudo-scientists such as Ayvazyan and others like him, claim Shushanik, Jakob Khutsesi and Ereti of that time!.. In the last years of his reign, Vakhtang Gorgasali in Patiakh punished by death Varsken for apostasy from Orthodoxy, no later than 490!..! Saint Shushanik did not share the Armenian religion, she was an Orthodox saint! Otherwise a Georgian Orthodox priest would not have been her spiritual mentor and biographer.

The historian and geographer Strabo provides ample data on the Iberian and Colchic kingdoms: he clearly describes the social, economic and political triumphs and the geographical position of these countries. As comical as it is for Armenian pseudo-scientists to claim that Georgia as a state did not exist, that Georgians were savages and barbarians, this definition, on the contrary, speaks of their uneducated nature! They do not know the simple truth that Christianity was preached in Iberia by St. Andrew and St. Simon of Kanana - the apostles of Jesus Christ themselves. Saint Epiphanius, who was born in 310 and died on 12 May 403, was bishop of Constantia (formerly Salamis) and archbishop of the island of Cyprus, left interesting material about the activity of Saint Andrew in his account: "... St. Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, according to legends, claims that St. Andrew preached among the Scythians, Sogdians, Gorsians, in the Great Sevastopol where the fortress of Absarta (this must be Abazgia in western Georgia - M. Tamarashvili), Iso port and the river Phasis and where Iberians, Susa, Fustians and Alans lived. We have these documents" (monk Epiphanius, "Life of Saint Andrew". M. Tamarashvili "The Georgian Church from the beginning to the present day", p. 167).

Mikhail Tamarashvili cites many examples of the life of Andrew the Apostle from the letters of the Holy Fathers, which confirm the preaching activities of St Andrew and St Simon in Colchis. True, Armenian pseudo-scientists are either angered by history and documentary sources, or deliberately sidestep the truth, but we cannot but point out to them that their adventurist intentions are damaging to Georgian-Armenian kinship, friendship and neighbourly relations.

At the mercy of Echmiadzin's non-Christian policy, for centuries the Georgian and Armenian peoples have been pitted against each other. Abraham's anathema was followed by many curses against the Georgians, but at the same time the policy of Echmiadzin called for Armenians to seize the territories of Iberia and Colchis and to Armenianise the nation, which can be proved by many facts from historical documents. Since ancient times, Armenians have been powerful and relentless enemies of Georgians. Their hatred and dirty tricks to falsify the truth have been and are being used to this day in every historical and social sphere and issue. No matter how horrible it is, Georgian people must face the truth and expose impostors. Armenian historians and writers have distorted and presented to descendants fictitious information in the form of the story of Moses of Khoren or added false statements by themselves.

In an article published in the Mshaksh newspaper, a Saruzanyan claims that "since ancient times, most of the population of Georgia, and in Tbilisi in particular, have been Armenians". - This idea was and still is held by a group of Armenian scientists, but on what basis?

Tsar Alexander I mentions in his documents 10 Armenian families (Dumas) who migrated to the Trialeti region. Vakhushti Borchalo describes them in geographical, historical and political descriptions: "the locals are Armenians by faith, a small number of the local population are Orthodox, but they are all, by their way of life, Georgians...". They are, undoubtedly, Georgians as Armenians do not change their character anywhere ... Meanwhile, traveler Gamba informs that Armenians in Georgia are not like Georgians and differ from them with their manners and customs. Based on this and other documents, it can be unilaterally stated that a Georgian tribe is considered to be every nation which has only the Armenian faith and not their morals and customs ('Iberia' 1902, B. Kldia; Russian newspaper 'Caucasus', Prof. A. Khakhanashvili).

The predatory nature of Armenians towards Georgians has manifested itself many times over. Over the centuries, a certain group has engaged in deliberate and clandestine activities as soon as an opportunity was given to humiliate the Georgians, to suppress them, to undermine their name.

The political ideology of Echmiadzin paved the way for the inferiority of the Georgian nation in case if not Armenians were masters of the Caucasus, then no one would be. Many plots were hatched artificially and even a legend was created about how Armenians spread Christianity in Georgia and created a written language for ignorant and miserable Georgians. Evidence was given of Bagrationi's Armenian origin and, as noted at the beginning of this article, in their view Rustaveli was also an Armenian, if nothing else about Baratashvili, Ilya and Akaki, St Nino, the Assyrian Fathers, St George...

That's enough! So disgraceful is such a nonsense that a normal, educated person of any nationality would be hard-pressed to repeat it!

Mr Ayvazyan, an academician, has also been more active in his newspaper over the past few years. He cites a huge number of examples in the pages of his newspaper of such Armenian legends. There are Armenian writers who have been actively working on this issue for a long time. Michael of Syria told in his 'Chronicle' of King Arshak (King of the Khaikah) how he conquered Syria, Palestine, Jerusalem, Assyria, Babylon, Italy and Rome itself! He burned the Iberian island (Spain), destroyed part of its population and resettled some of them to the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains (i.e. the Georgians to the territory of modern Guria) to become slaves and servants of the Armenians. These resettled Iberians, it turns out, learned "civilisation" at the mercy of the Armenians, then rebelled against their masters and wanted to secede! - That is where the dog is buried! They want to make the sensible world community believe in a made-up nonsense.

But for the thousandth time the question arises, why the stupidity? It's all meaningful! In this case one must necessarily recall the words of the famous French traveller Count Charles de Cholet: "Despite the great sympathy which the Armenian poverty, misery and sorrows engender, I have never been able to get close to them, as I have been unable to adapt to the hateful insidiousness, nastiness and nauseating perfidy!" - what a shameful characterisation! Is perfidy and treachery really worth the embarrassment of the world? Why?

Let us leave Schole and open § 53 of Tacitus (no historian can accuse him of being involved), in which the author writes about the Armenians: "They are an inherently duplicitous people, both in character and in geographical location!"

There are many examples of the brigandish-covarious nature of the Armenians, in the same book of Tacitus, in § 46 of Book 12, their low nature is clearly characterized!..

(to be continued)

David Maisuradze

Master of Political Science