Church St.Nedela in Bitola inscription - real or fake?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by DraganOfStip

I didn't say they're not reasonable,scientific or historically accurate.

You said "every time I see them present an "evidence" for THEIR version of events,if I don't have a reasonable,scientifically or historically backed-up explanation.....", that is what I was referring to. You obviously have your own opinions before you seek further information here because as you yourself admit, you've been arguing with Bulgars, Greeks and Serbs on many forums. I want to know what those opinions are and why they're considered unreasonable.

Who would you believe,as a foreigner,as a random non-biased guy?

Your fictional analogy isn't entirely accurate and the lack of specific detail makes it too ambiguous for comparison. If it was explained logically I would believe the Macedonian over the Bulgar. I am under no illusions about the 'Bulgarian' term being assumed in Macedonia during certain periods of time, but this also applies to other regions in the Balkans. For example, the east Roman administrative unit known as the 'Bulgaria' theme (which was established after the defeat of Samuel in the 11th century) included parts of Macedonia, Serbia and other neighbouring lands (this was a political move in part based on socio-religious commonalities due to the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia), while most of Bulgaria proper itself was known as the 'Paristrion' theme. The 14th century traveller known as Sir John Mandeville speaks of Bulgars in Belgrade, the 17th century Armenian traveller known as Simeon Lehaci spoke of 'Bulgarian' monasteries and the Bulgarian language being spoken in Bosnia, another 17th century traveller known as Evliya Celebi spoke of Bulgars in Belgrade, 19th and 20th century Ottoman records refer to the Serbs (and Macedonians) in Kosovo as 'Bulgars' due to their adherence to the Exarchate, etc. There is a plethora of information concerning the real meaning of the 'Bulgarian' name in Macedonia, and after an adequate assessment of all the information and perspectives, only the Macedonian argument is comprehensive and logical. We are the indigenous people of Macedonia and form a distinct ethnicity in the Balkans, we are not an extension of another ethnicity and history clearly shows this, despite the use of certain terms during different periods. Such superficial 'identities' mean nothing, because at the end of the day, despite empires, occupations, religious and political propaganda, lack of coordinated efforts, etc, the indigenous Macedonian identity still prevailed. That was the logical outcome.

[DraganOfStip]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

You said "every time I see them present an "evidence" for THEIR version of events,if I don't have a reasonable,scientifically or historically backed-up explanation.....", that is what I was referring to. You obviously have your own opinions before you seek further information here because as you yourself admit, you've been arguing with Bulgars, Greeks and Serbs on many forums. I want to know what those opinions are and why they're considered unreasonable.

Your fictional analogy isn't entirely accurate and the lack of specific detail makes it too ambiguous for comparison. If it was explained logically I would believe the Macedonian over the Bulgar. I am under no illusions about the 'Bulgarian' term being assumed in Macedonia during certain periods of time, but this also applies to other regions in the Balkans. For example, the east Roman administrative unit known as the 'Bulgaria' theme (which was established after the defeat of Samuel in the 11th century) included parts of Macedonia, Serbia and other neighbouring lands (this was a political move in part based on socio-religious commonalities due to the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia), while most of Bulgaria proper itself was known as the 'Paristrion' theme. The 14th century traveller known as Sir John Mandeville speaks of Bulgars in Belgrade, the 17th century Armenian traveller known as Simeon Lehaci spoke of 'Bulgarian' monasteries and the Bulgarian language being spoken in Bosnia, another 17th century traveller known as Evliya Celebi spoke of Bulgars in Belgrade, 19th and 20th century Ottoman records refer to the Serbs (and Macedonians) in Kosovo as 'Bulgars' due to their adherence to the Exarchate, etc. There is a plethora of information concerning the real meaning of the 'Bulgarian' name in Macedonia, and after an adequate assessment of all the information and perspectives, only the Macedonian argument is comprehensive and logical. We are the indigenous people of Macedonia and form a distinct ethnicity in the Balkans, we are not an extension of another ethnicity and history clearly shows this, despite the use of certain terms during different periods. Such superficial 'identities' mean nothing, because at the end of the day, despite empires, occupations, religious and political propaganda, lack of coordinated efforts, etc, the indigenous Macedonian identity still prevailed. That was the logical outcome.

SoM,I'm not the one that needs the 'reasonable,scientifically or historically backed-up explanation',neither of us Macedonians do.The world is the one that needs it.When I worked aboard a cruise ship some time ago,there were many Macedonians,Bulgarians and Serbs as well.One day,a Mexican dude that I worked with,also happened to be a very good friend of mine, asked me "Hey,is it true that you Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians with a speaking disability?".Of course,he didn't mean it as an offense towards me,he laughed to that statement himself,but I was like "What?Where did you get that from?" with a serious face expression.And right away he felt that this was a sensitive issue for me as a Macedonian,he apologized and said "The Bulgarians are openly discussing this everywhere, I thought you were familiar with it,I didn't know there were tensions between you guys."I almost got into a fight that night in the crew bar with the tatar bastard that my friend overheard saying those words.
As long as our enemies are poisoning the world with their propaganda we'll be a mocking stock to the ordinary people out there,that's why discrediting every single 'evidence' of theirs with solid facts needs to be our priority.

[Stevce]

Hi guys, just a few questions.
Wasn't the Bulgarian Exarchate developed in 1870 not 1863?
Or was that the official date of the exarchate and it was actually around earlier?
Can you please post a picture of that inscription which refers to 1875? I can't see it on the link.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Originally Posted by Stevce

Hi guys, just a few questions.
Wasn't the Bulgarian Exarchate developed in 1870 not 1863?
Or was that the official date of the exarchate and it was actually around earlier?
Can you please post a picture of that inscription which refers to 1875? I can't see it on the link.

The Bulgarian church had been seeking independence from the Greek church in the 1850's and 1860's, I believe it may have been granted autonomy but I don't know much about this. Could be similar to how the Macedonian church was granted autonomy as a part of the Serbian church in the 1950's before becoming fully independent in the 1960's