Dioscoros

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

We don’t believe that it is merely body. We reject that it is merely body and we reject that it is merely divinity. We say that it is the composite of both.

On the other hand, your heretical religion teaches that the Eucharist is corruptible flesh, which means you admit it is not Christ’s risen flesh. This means that our forefathers who your coreligionists force fed your “Eucharist” to were right to spit it out onto the ground. This by your own Anastasius of Sinai’s Eucharistology.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

This is just empty jargon which you aren’t able to corroborate. Agen ran circles around David Erhan, for instance, getting him to admit that he (Erhan) disagrees with the Acts of Ephesus, namely the Conciliar Homilies of St Theodotus. He also explained how Erhan’s idea of counting by identity combined with his formal-material hypostasis explanation renders him to confess 2 hypostases after the union. Also a host of other things…

But then again, I see from your bio that you’re ROCOR-MP meaning your whole identity is claiming Old Calendarist individuals while rejecting Old Calendarism. So what you’re doing is part and parcel with your confused identity.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

Not only did I understand, but I showed that this falls more strongly atop yourself (or yourselves, to pay homage to your plural identity) than you could argue it does on Jonathan. So again, quit the Arian pretense and offer to debate Agen like Jonathan did on where the True Church is. Then and only then will you hope of rising above the bare minimum standard that Jonathan set for your criticism.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

That’s projection on your part, father. You speak all kinds of words about following the Holy Fathers, the Holy Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils, and you feel the ability to leverage these against the Latins, the Ecumenical Byzantines, and maybe even the Old Calendarists. But what you follow is no different than what the Arians followed. They went astray from what Nicaea dogmatized, and in pretense they claimed to hold to Nicaea. But their ensuing pseudo-Ecumenical Councils, pseudo-saints, and the rest were condemned by the content of faith in Nicaea.

In the same way, your sect only in pretense claims to believe in the Three Ecumenical Councils, but in content you trample upon all of this.

But instead of contending as to what the Church was teaching in Ephesus, you instead choose to attack a man (Jonathan) who is willing to debate this when you are unwilling. That speaks volumes as to how insecure you seem to be in your religious position.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

If he’s such a “man of this age,” yet he was willing to debate what the One True Church is with Agen and two other Orthodox panelists on the attached video, then that speaks even more strongly against those in your sect who are afraid of contending with the truth. If Jonathan is simply struggling with which side is correct, and he’s undecided or on the fence, then that would show that he’s trying to be humble, to which God will give His grace.

So the fact that he is at least willing to contend for what he believes (falsely) to be true puts him in a much better position than you and those who agree with you. If you’d like to stand by your words, then you should at least hold yourself to a bare minimum standard of contending for your side in a debate with Agen like Jonathan did.

https://t.co/JaPftfU59S

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

Only the last (ignorance attributed to the union of Christ) of what you listed is the Agnoetae doctrine. You clearly are unfamiliar with Church history and dogmatics. Thanks for calling Gregory of Rome and Emperor Justinian “abysmal” in their understanding, I appreciate that for the sake of archiving.

BTW, as it regards the subject of “abysmal understanding” and “embarrassment,” I recall you to where you tried to say that “Kai tauton auto” does not refer to identity, when it very clearly means “and identical to him.” The fact that you’re this ignorant speaks volumes. Time and time again, Hill. Please, read your own councils, learn your own faith, and then maybe try to engage in polemics. We shouldn’t have to cite to you what your religious body believes.

[Hill @YariLogos]

@dioscoros_ καὶ ταὐτὸν αὐτῷ != identical

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

So you’re not only ignorant of Justinian’s Christology, but also of Gregory of Rome’s Christology. That in addition to your abysmal ignorance as to the Greek of Maximus’ Ambiguum 21, which even your own partisans were embarrassed of for you:

“The day, then, and the hour of the judgment He knows as God and man, but for this reason, that God is man. It is moreover a thing quite manifest, that whoever is not a Nestorian cannot in any wise be an Agnoite. For with what meaning can one that confesses that the very Wisdom of God was incarnate say that there is anything that the Wisdom of God is ignorant of?”

- Gregory of Rome, Registrum Book 10, Letter 39

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

Notice that Hill, in the context of foolishly using a faulty, unverified translation, admits that it is heretical to believe we become identical to Christ. Yet, the very Greek of what he underlined says that very thing, he just didn’t know what he was underlining says in the Greek:

καὶ γενέσθαι ζώσας εἰκόνας Χριστοῦ, καὶ ταὐτὸν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον κατὰ τὴν χάριν

Now, here here a multi-choice question for those paying attention:

Does ταὐτὸν refer to:
a) oneness
b) bananas
c) identity
d) Temu Dyer
e) Hill

Choose carefully…

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

@subdeacondaniel @HankRenter @miaphysite3 @awmanspider @HankRenter would you eat from the spoon of your archdeaconess?

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

@reformedroom @GloveAcademia @miaphysite3 So then, we do agree that whichever side is correct on Christology is what the other side must convert to. That makes it sound all the more important to stay within the topic of Christology. Allow me to add 4 more examples of Ephesus 431 clearly teaching the correct doctrine:

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

Actually, if you check the OP it was a self-professed subdeacon. In the Apostolic Canons they are handled differently than laity. In ancient times subdeacons were barred from subsequent marriage like priests and deacons.

The issue is that if a self-professed EO subdeacon is openly Zoroastrian-pagan in their understanding, and this is unchallenged among his coreligionists, then it sets a precedent that this is what you guys believe. This is especially the case when the neopalamite school of thought is under serious dogmatic criticism from contemporary OO theologians and bishops.

So to the contrary, dear light, it is very consequential. Our view is that there is no such thing as “churches,” but only the Apostolic Orthodox Church, and that those in schism with her will once again become legitimate churches when they convert to her one faith and are integrated into the one baptism. This further contextualizes why this Zoroastrian representation of the sensationalist holy fire ceremony is so dangerous for the concept of your religious body coming into union with the Church of Christ.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

You didn’t offend me, you just confused me a bit because it came off as if you didn’t feel it a serious issue that someone from your religion advocated for paganism by calling a material fire “uncreated.” That is plenty clear as to its meaning. I would figure a reasonable Chalcedonian would always disown that viewpoint with vigor.

You also confused me a bit by giving a pretense that you cared to introduce the topic of Christology, but then when I responded you pulled back and said you didn’t actually want to hear the truth regarding that subject.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

Do you realize that if people within your communion make rhetorical posts against other religious bodies which assume Zoroastrian paganism, that this is not only counterproductive to unity, but that maybe your communion shouldn’t defend that representation of your faith?

Do you wish to encounter Zoroastrian paganism within your communion with a libertarian sense of non-aggression? I can guarantee that any union desired ought to be free of paganism.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

I didn’t call you, nor do I recall calling even those who you call “saints,” pagan - I called people who say that a material fire is the uncreated God as “pagan.” If you believe that this belief in fire-worship represents your faith, then you need to reconsider.

Also, from my very calm self, your statement comes off as projection. But I realize that sometimes people miscommunicate via text so I’m willing to give you that benefit of doubt.

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

@NewsNFTU If only St Peter said something in Acts 2 about that when he was asked what must be done…

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

@reformedroom @GloveAcademia @miaphysite3 Pray tell, what exactly do you believe is being read into the text which is not perspicuous from the relevant texts that we can cite?

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

@reformedroom @miaphysite3 @GloveAcademia Well, are you one of those who believes that a material fire is uncreated, that is, God Himself?

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

@reformedroom @GloveAcademia @miaphysite3 You think Satan possessed the Third Holy Council, and that it’s pagan?

I guess the “reformed” in your name makes sense!

[Dioscoros @dioscoros_]

@NewsNFTU @grevstv @AnaniasFather That’s very surprising!