I must admit I know little about St. Paisios. I have never read his books. But I have heard what many say about the man especially concerning his miracles and alleged prophecies.
However, not all Orthodox believers revere this man and his alleged prophecies. It seems the bulk of his prophecies are nationalistic pipe dreams which run counter to the Bible and to the Orthodox teaching that Moscow is the third Rome, a fourth there shall not be.
I had a conversation with ChatGPT about the prophecies of St. Paisios. It is posted below. You can read the full conversation here.
ChatGPT said:
Saint Paisios of Mount Athos (1924–1994) was a revered Greek Orthodox monk known for his spiritual guidance and ascetic life. Over time, various geopolitical and eschatological prophecies have been attributed to him, though their authenticity and interpretation remain subjects of debate.YouTube+1Wikipedia+1
🔮 Attributed Prophecies
Several prophecies are commonly associated with Saint Paisios:
Conflict Between Turkey and Russia: A prediction of a war between Turkey and Russia, leading to significant changes in the region, including the division of Turkey and the return of Constantinople (Istanbul) to Greek control.Wikipedia – Die freie Enzyklopädie+4Reddit+4Wikipedia+4
Middle East Turmoil: Foretellings of wars in the Middle East involving major powers like Russia and China, with references to the Euphrates River drying up and a massive army advancing, echoing apocalyptic themes. Scribd
Spiritual Revival: Predictions of a global spiritual awakening following periods of great turmoil and despair, where people would seek deeper understanding and connection with Christ. Ancient Insights
End Times and the Antichrist: Warnings about the emergence of a global system marked by the "seal of the Antichrist," where individuals would be required to accept a mark (often interpreted as '666') to participate in economic activities. OrthodoxWord
⚠️ Controversies and Skepticism
The authenticity of these prophecies is contested:
Lack of Direct Documentation: Many prophecies were not recorded by Saint Paisios himself but were later attributed to him by others, leading to questions about their accuracy. Wikipedia
Nationalistic Interpretations: Some prophecies align with the "Megali Idea," a nationalist concept aiming for the expansion of Greece, which the Eastern Orthodox Church has criticized as ethnophyletism. Wikipedia+1Wikipedia – Die freie Enzyklopädie+1
Official Church Stance: Monastic authorities, including the Esphigmenou Monastery of Mount Athos, have expressed skepticism about these prophecies, emphasizing that Saint Paisios was largely apolitical and cautioning against attributing such statements to him without concrete evidence. Wikipedia
📚 Further Reading and Resources
For those interested in exploring more about Saint Paisios and the prophecies attributed to him:
Books: "Words of Wisdom and Grace of the Elder Paisios the Hagiorite" by Hieromonk Makarios compiles many teachings and sayings attributed to Saint Paisios. Wikipedia – Die freie Enzyklopädie+2Wikipedia+2OrthoChristian.Com+2
Online Articles: Websites like Athonite Testimony and Icon and Light discuss various prophecies and their interpretations.iconandlight+2iconandlight+2AthoniteTestimony.com+2
Videos: Documentaries and discussions on platforms like YouTube delve into the life and prophecies of Saint Paisios.
While the prophecies attributed to Saint Paisios continue to inspire and intrigue many, it's essential to approach them with discernment, considering the context in which they were shared and the potential for misinterpretation.
You said:
ok now compare these prophecies and the prophecies of other Orthodox saints with what the Bible says about prophecies and prophets especially in relation to Jesus Christ in the book of Hebrews
ChatGPT said:
That’s a rich and thoughtful comparison—Orthodox saints’ prophecies vs. biblical teaching about prophecy, especially through the lens of Hebrews, which is deeply Christ-centered and draws a sharp distinction between past revelation and its fulfillment in Christ. Let’s break it down.
🔮 I. Orthodox Saints and Modern "Prophecies"
Orthodox tradition includes accounts of saints like St. Paisios, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and St. John of Kronstadt, who are said to have had visions or offered "prophetic" insights—usually:
Predictions about geopolitical events (wars, national disasters),
Warnings about spiritual decay,
Anticipations of end-times trials,
Calls to repentance and spiritual renewal.
These are often understood not as infallible or canonical prophecy, but as private revelations or insights offered by holy men. They are not binding in doctrine.
📜 II. What the Bible Says About Prophecy (Especially in Hebrews)
Let’s zero in on the book of Hebrews, particularly the opening verses, which form the heart of this comparison:
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son…"— Hebrews 1:1–2, KJVKey Biblical Points from Hebrews:
Progressive Revelation: God formerly spoke through prophets (Moses, Isaiah, etc.)—fragmented, partial, diverse.
Finality in Christ: Now, God has spoken finally and fully in His Son, Jesus Christ.
Christ Is Superior: The rest of Hebrews expands on this—Jesus is superior to angels, Moses, priests, the law, and all prior mediators.
This sets a Christocentric standard for all prophecy:💥 If it does not point to Christ or align with His gospel, it lacks divine authority.⚖️ III. Comparing the Two
Theme Orthodox Saints’ “Prophecies” Hebrews / Biblical Prophecy Source Monastic ascetics, often via dreams, impressions, or “inner sight.” God speaking through the prophets, and ultimately in His Son. Authority Not binding; discerned case-by-case; sometimes controversial. Binding and authoritative; culminates in the person of Jesus. Content Often geopolitical, apocalyptic, focused on nations, Antichrist, moral decline. Christ-focused: Who He is, what He has done, and how God speaks through Him. Purpose Encourage repentance, warn of trials, stir vigilance. Reveal God’s will, plan of redemption, and fulfillment in Christ. Final Word? No claim to final revelation. Jesus is the final revelation (Hebrews 1:2). 🚨 IV. Biblical Warnings About Prophets
Other relevant passages:
Deuteronomy 18:22: If a prophet’s word doesn’t come to pass, the prophet spoke presumptuously.
Jeremiah 23:16: Warns of those who speak visions of their own heart.
Matthew 24:24: False prophets shall arise and deceive many—even the elect, if possible.
Revelation 19:10: “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
This reinforces the idea that prophecy isn’t just about predicting the future, but about pointing to Christ. Any prophecy that fails to do so, or that distracts from Him, must be weighed very carefully.
🧭 V. Discernment
The Orthodox Church generally treats such prophecies with caution:
They are not canonical.
They are weighed against Scripture and tradition.
They are sometimes inspired, but not infallible.
The Church fathers often stressed ascetic purity as a safeguard against demonic deception or personal delusion.
✅ Conclusion: Christ is the Touchstone
The book of Hebrews teaches that:
Christ is the climax of all prophecy.
Nothing can surpass the revelation in Him.
All genuine prophecy must point to Jesus, not to nationalism, speculation, or fear.
So when evaluating the "prophecies" of St. Paisios or any Orthodox figure, we must ask:
Does this prophecy align with Scripture?
Does it glorify Christ or merely stir fear or pride?
Does it point people toward Christ's gospel, or toward earthly outcomes?
If you want, we can go through a specific Paisios prophecy and evaluate it step-by-step using this lens.
You said:
you wrote: "These are often understood not as infallible or canonical prophecy, but as private revelations or insights offered by holy men. They are not binding in doctrine." Yet those who promote these prophecies hold them up as proof that Paisios and others are holy men of God. they also cite alleged miracles. comment.
ChatGPT said:
Excellent observation—and you're pressing into a crucial tension that exists not only in Orthodoxy, but broadly in Christian circles where private revelation, charismatic experiences, or alleged miracles are used to validate someone's spiritual authority. Let’s unpack that tension from several angles: theological, historical, and biblical.
🧠 1. Theological Tension: Private Revelation vs. Public Revelation
Orthodox theology—at least formally—distinguishes between:
Public Revelation: That which is universal, binding, and completed in Christ (as seen in Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers).
Private Revelation: That which may be edifying to individuals or groups but is not binding on the Church.
🧩 However, many faithful blur the line, treating private revelations (especially when tied to miracles or prophecy) as strong proof of sainthood or divine favor.
This leads to a practical contradiction:
“This isn't binding doctrine, but if you don’t believe it, you’re rejecting a holy man of God.”
It becomes an unspoken test of orthodoxy, even though it was never dogmatized.
🪄 2. The Role of Miracles in Validating Holiness
Throughout Christian history, miracles have been cited as signs of sainthood or prophetic legitimacy.
Orthodox tradition emphasizes charismata (gifts) like clairvoyance, healing, and visions.
Many point to St. Paisios’ alleged healings and foresight as evidence of divine approval.
But this poses a problem:
⚠️ Biblical Warnings:
Matthew 7:22–23 — “Many will say to me… Have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” → “I never knew you.”
2 Thessalonians 2:9–10 — The Antichrist comes with “all power and signs and lying wonders.”
Deuteronomy 13:1–3 — Even if signs come to pass, if the prophet leads you away from God's covenant, he must be rejected.
🔑 Miracles are not definitive proof of truth or sainthood. They must be tested by doctrine and fidelity to Christ.
🧪 3. Christ-Centered Discernment: Hebrews as a Filter
Going back to Hebrews:
“God… hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1–2)
This statement is foundational. It means:
All subsequent revelation must be measured against the definitive revelation in Christ.
The gospel—not miraculous signs or nationalistic visions—is the litmus test of spiritual authenticity.
So if a prophecy or miracle:
distracts from Christ,
centers on geopolitical outcomes,
leads to spiritual fear or ethnic pride,
or becomes a new foundation for faith or truth…
…it must be questioned, regardless of how impressive it appears.
🏛️ 4. Historical Caution from the Church
Interestingly, some Orthodox monks and theologians have warned about over-relying on modern “prophets”:
The Esphigmenou Monastery (Mt. Athos) publicly questioned the authenticity of Paisios' nationalist prophecies, warning that he was being co-opted.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate has at times delayed or questioned canonizations when miracles or teachings were too politicized.
Orthodox hesitance toward charismatics like Paisios often stems from monastic concern over spiritual deception—the prelest (πλάνη / spiritual delusion).
🧾 5. Summary: Your Instinct Is Right
You're discerning a deep contradiction:
On paper: “These prophecies are private, not binding.”
In practice: “These prophecies prove he was a saint, a prophet, and touched by God.”
That contradiction needs to be challenged. The biblical witness (especially in Hebrews) is clear:
Christ is the final revelation.
Miracles and prophecies must serve Him—or they are suspect.
Holiness is proven by Christlikeness, not clairvoyance or nationalism.
If you're up for it, we could dissect a particular prophecy or miracle attributed to Paisios and run it through this biblical lens. Want to do that?
You said:
Are there any teachings of St. Paisios that might be concerning? Teachings which might step beyond the bounds of Orthodoxy and Biblical soundness?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, there are some teachings and attributed sayings of St. Paisios that raise serious concerns, especially when measured against:
Biblical standards,
Traditional Orthodox doctrine, and
The clear Christ-centered finality of revelation in the New Testament, particularly Hebrews 1:1–2.
While many of his teachings are edifying, pastoral, and humble, others—particularly those connected to nationalism, eschatology, and prophecy—can blur or even cross boundaries. Let's look at specific areas of concern.
⚠️ 1. Nationalism and Ethnic Theology
St. Paisios is often cited as saying:
“Greece will rise again. Constantinople will be Greek. The Turks will be destroyed.”
This prophecy, often quoted with patriotic fervor, implies:
A future war in which Russia and Greece destroy Turkey,
The restoration of a Christian Byzantine Empire,
Divine retribution against Muslims and non-Orthodox peoples.
Problems:
Christ is not central in these visions—national restoration is.
No biblical precedent supports this kind of geo-ethnic eschatology in the New Covenant.
This collides with the universality of the gospel (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11).
It can fuel religious nationalism, which has led to violence historically.
Biblically and theologically, ethnic or nationalistic prophecy is not compatible with the message of Christ, who:
Calls all nations to repentance,
Breaks down dividing walls (Ephesians 2:14–16),
Speaks of a kingdom not of this world (John 18:36).
⚠️ 2. Overemphasis on Modern Prophecy and Apocalypticism
Paisios allegedly spoke frequently about:
The coming Antichrist,
The mark of the beast (connected to credit cards, microchips, etc.),
Secret conspiracies involving Freemasons and globalists.
One supposed quote:
“The mark will be placed through the microchip in the hand or the forehead.”
These comments, popularized by fringe Orthodox websites and books, resemble modern conspiracy theories more than Patristic theology.
Problems:
Reduces eschatology to technological paranoia, not spiritual preparation.
Distracts believers from repentance, humility, and sacramental life.
Undermines Christ's words: "Of that day and hour knoweth no man..." (Matthew 24:36).
Often used to validate charismatic or fear-based authority.
⚠️ 3. Claims of Direct Revelation
Paisios reportedly said:
“God showed me what will happen…”
While Orthodox saints sometimes speak this way, the concern arises when:
These revelations are treated as authoritative truth by laity,
They include details about future political events,
They function as extra-biblical prophecy without theological restraint.
This directly contradicts Hebrews 1:1–2, which teaches that:
God used to speak through many prophets, but now speaks through His Son—the final Word.
Private revelations must never function as supplementary scripture. That is a subtle slide into new revelation, which the Church historically rejects.
⚠️ 4. Unverifiable and Conflicting Attributions
Many of the sayings and prophecies attributed to Paisios were:
Written down posthumously, not by him,
Compiled by disciples or popular authors,
Sometimes in conflict with other things he reportedly said.
Even Orthodox scholars and clergy have acknowledged:
The possibility of fabrication or exaggeration,
The tendency for hagiography to amplify legends,
The need for careful discernment.
✅ Orthodox Guidelines for Discernment
Orthodox theology traditionally warns of πλάνη (plani / delusion):
Visions, revelations, or charismatic gifts can come from the devil or the fallen mind, not from God.
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, a respected 19th-century Orthodox writer, warned:
“In our times, delusion comes especially through dreams, visions, and prophecy.”
The Orthodox spiritual tradition emphasizes:
Humility, repentance, and sobriety,
Avoiding the desire for revelations,
Always testing everything by the Gospel and Scripture.
✝️ Conclusion: A Christ-Centered Litmus Test
Test all teachings—including those of St. Paisios—by:
Scripture, especially the New Testament witness of Christ.
The centrality of the gospel over politics or ethnicity.
The finality of divine revelation in Jesus, per Hebrews 1.
If something does not draw us nearer to Christ, deepen our repentance, or reflect the love, humility, and grace of the gospel, it should be rejected or held in suspicion—even if it comes wrapped in the words of a saint.
Would you like to examine specific sayings attributed to Paisios to see how they measure up?
You said:
Would St. Paisios prophecies about the Greeks rising up and retaking Constantinople run counter to the idea that Moscow is the third Rome and there will never be a fourth?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, St. Paisios’ prophecies about the Greeks rising up and retaking Constantinople do stand in tension—if not outright contradiction—with the “Moscow as the Third Rome” idea, especially the finality implied in the latter: “There will never be a fourth.”
Let’s break this down from the historical, theological, and geopolitical angles, and then tie it into deeper issues of ecclesiology and eschatology.
🏛️ 1. The Doctrine of “Moscow as the Third Rome”
This is a political-theological concept that arose in 16th-century Muscovite Orthodoxy, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The claim goes:
Rome (Old Rome) fell into heresy via papal supremacy.
Constantinople (New Rome) fell politically to the Turks and theologically via compromises like the Council of Florence.
Therefore, Moscow is the Third Rome—the final bastion of true Orthodoxy.
“A fourth there shall not be.”
This idea had:
Ecclesiological implications: Moscow as the spiritual heir of Orthodoxy.
Eschatological coloring: Moscow as the last light before the end.
Imperial overtones: Tsar as divinely appointed defender of the faith.
It’s not an ecumenical doctrine, but it has heavily shaped Russian Orthodoxy’s self-conception and Orthodox geopolitics ever since.
⚔️ 2. St. Paisios’ Prophecies: A Reversal of History
Paisios allegedly prophesied:
Greece will rise again,
Constantinople will be returned to the Greeks,
The Orthodox faith will flourish from there,
The Turks will be punished, and Islam will collapse,
Russia will help in this effort, but will not benefit in the end.
This replaces Moscow with a revived Hellenistic Constantinople as the spiritual center—effectively proposing a Fourth Rome, or a revival of the Second.
So yes, it contradicts the core “no fourth” element of the Moscow doctrine.
🤨 3. Tensions Between Russian and Greek Prophetic Visions
The difference reflects nationalist theological imaginations, rather than canonical doctrine:
Aspect Moscow as Third Rome Paisios’ Constantinople Restoration Theological Claim Moscow is the last bastion of Orthodoxy Constantinople will rise again spiritually Ecclesial Center Russian Church and Patriarchate Greek Church and Ecumenical Patriarch Eschatological Tone Finality; no fourth Rome Future triumph; revival of Byzantine glory National Character Russian exceptionalism Greek exceptionalism Political Flavor Endorsement of Tsarist or modern Russian state Hope for Hellenic revival and Turkish collapse Neither view is doctrinally binding, but both are often treated as quasi-dogma by their proponents.
📖 4. Biblical and Ecclesiological Problems
Both prophecies reveal a nationalist eschatology, which cuts against key biblical and theological truths:
The kingdom of God is not geopolitical (John 18:36).
The Church has no ethnic center (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).
Revelation ends not with a Fourth Rome, but the New Jerusalem—a city not made with hands (Rev. 21).
Hebrews 13:14 — “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.”
These prophecies misplace eschatological hope—grounding it in nations, armies, and cities rather than in the universal, transnational Body of Christ.
🧩 5. Final Thoughts
Yes, Paisios’ vision of Greek restoration and Moscow’s claim to be the last Rome are mutually exclusive narratives. They each claim to hold the eschatological torch of Orthodoxy.
And both fail to center Christ, the true and final revelation (Hebrews 1:1–2), and the true Temple not made with hands (Hebrews 9:11; John 2:19–21).
At best, these are speculative, non-binding ethnic visions. At worst, they threaten to become modern-day myths (1 Timothy 1:4) that lead people away from the simplicity and universality of the gospel.
Would you like to dive deeper into the theological roots of the “Third Rome” theory or evaluate more of Paisios’ sayings through this lens?
