YouTube
QME
Dioscoros
2.7K posts
@dioscoros_ @HankRenter @EthanWayne2001 Its your church which is turning more and more into a mega church evangelical worship not ours. By their fruits you will know them.
English
Come on Hill, just because it’s June it doesn’t mean you have to go with the cultural tidal wave. Also, even those within EO who study this recognize that Symeon fantasized about the sin of that burned-down place. @EthanWayne2001 is honest about it, brought the receipts, and none of the Dyerite mobsters were able to refute the perspicuousness of Symeon’s blasphemous homoeroticism:
Hill@YariLogos
The ignorance of anti Chalcedonian knows no bounds When they go after St Symeon the New Theologian Hymns of Love, you know they're nothing but little cockroach demons
English
EOs will tell you that true theology is mystical, arising from experience of God through the sacraments, and then let a catechumen who’s never experienced the sacraments to teach theology to a bunch of strangers on the internet.
It’s ok because he has a blessing though!
Orthodox Ethos@OrthodoxEthos
@NewsNFTU He has a spiritual father. He has a blessing.
English
@HankRenter @EthanWayne2001 Song of Solomon doesn’t talk about homoeroticism. That’s like a Muslim telling a Christian to read about King David the Prophet in response to pointing out Aisha’s age when Mohammed married her.
Do you know what the difference between normal sexuality and homoeroticism is?
English
@dioscoros_ @EthanWayne2001 No he was not.
Read Song of Solomon you blaspheming Turk roach
English
@HankRenter @EthanWayne2001 Symeon was a homoerotic individual, and you still call him “theologian” alongside only 2 other figures; an apostle and one of the greatest patriarchs to have ever lived. I guess your sect values being a homoeroticist. Good luck with that.
English
Dioscoros รีทวีตแล้ว
Hmm, fair point. Maybe instead I should have shown your saint describing a male emperor lying in bed with another man, kissing him mouth to mouth, and pressing his face upon his “members”: as an analogy for God and repentant sinners.
You can blame all these low blows on C2A
Hill@YariLogos
The ignorance of anti Chalcedonian knows no bounds When they go after St Symeon the New Theologian Hymns of Love, you know they're nothing but little cockroach demons
English
@YariLogos @EthanWayne2001 would rock your world on what Symeon really thought… or you could keep living in delusion.
Dioscoros@dioscoros_
Come on Hill, just because it’s June it doesn’t mean you have to go with the cultural tidal wave. Also, even those within EO who study this recognize that Symeon fantasized about the sin of that burned-down place. @EthanWayne2001 is honest about it, brought the receipts, and none of the Dyerite mobsters were able to refute the perspicuousness of Symeon’s blasphemous homoeroticism:
English
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.
English
@dioscoros_ @OrthodoxEthos Next time you partake of the "eucharist" in your worship place, ask your "priest* how it is the body of Christ without being the divine essence, and if it is merely his body and created, how that is not Nestorian
English
Sad… but not surprising…
This is the spirit of the age, the pestilence we are all breathing in daily: an underlying if often undetected disdain for Truth as a Person/as the Body of Christ, an incarnate Reality in time and space, and thus a resignation from it, which was brought about in part due to a reluctance to crucify our fallen rationalism, which of course cannot be the conduit for epignosis (experiential knowledge).
This is the milieu in which outright nihilism thrives.
George@GeorgeNicholasK
In case you were wondering why Jonathan of Roots of Orthodoxy/Roots of Faith decided to remain Roman Catholic, here he is asking for the intercessions of Pope Shenouda Credit to @C2Antiquity
English
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.
English
@dioscoros_ @OrthodoxEthos As long as Agen is unable to make the same arguments as the Fathers he loves to quote mine, I dont see why any serious Christian should debate him. He is like a toddler repeating what his parents told him to do without understanding the reasoning behind it.
English
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.
English
@dioscoros_ You simply did not understand what we wrote above, so there’s no point in continuing a discussion.
You have not even grasped the first level of what we were trying to say about Jonathan and his stance.
English
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.
English
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.
youtu.be/dT1AQLj7_q8?is…
YouTube
English
You entirely missed the point.
He is venerating the pope.
And I do not doubt he is open and accepting to the veneration of many on both sides …
That is, he is a man of this age and thus he is not venerating the “scandal of the particular” - the Incarnate Truth — even on the theoretical plane.
English
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
English
@dioscoros_ Saying that Christ wills the blameless passions and thus truly hungers & thirsts and at times is 'ignorant' != Agnoetae
Just like your abysmal understanding of Amb 21, you're only continuing to embarrass yourself here
English
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…
English
@dioscoros_ Except Christ not knowing according to humanity != agnoetae
English
@subdeacondaniel @HankRenter @miaphysite3 @awmanspider @HankRenter would you eat from the spoon of your archdeaconess?
English
@HankRenter @miaphysite3 @awmanspider Archdeacon Angelic-Phoebe Molen (Angelic Molen) of Harare, Zimbabwe, became the first woman to be sacramentally ordained as a deacon in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa. She was ordained on May 2, 2024, and elevated to the rank of archdeacon on May 4
English
@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:
English
who cares? of course it’s handled differently but do you actually think a subdeacon speaks for the church? the patriarch himself could fall into heresy and that doesn’t mean the church as a whole fell into error.
also, yes, i am aware. we’re not branch theorists, i said “church” to be charitable to your perspective because the one true church is the eastern orthodox one.
lastly, the holy fire isn’t what our church relies on for its validity. it could be truly a miracle or not and it wouldn’t change a thing. just like those from your church who have gone to participate in this event and you wouldn’t say that this invalidates your church or anything of the sort.
English
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.
English
ok but who’s making these posts and how are these posts truly preventing unity? even if what they said is truly unorthodox and you were right in your assessment of their words, this isn’t preventing anything between our churches because it’s not a dogmatic truth and is being said by people whom we don’t even know nor have any sort of pull or power in the church. just laymen saying things, just like their could be laymen from your church who may have wrong beliefs, it happens.
English
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.
English
well, it seemed that way, but rather than resorting to name-calling, maybe you should try to understand what they’re saying and see where you differ.
thanks for not calling the Saint, pagan.
no self-projection i was just giving you the same energy to make you reflect on your words, but i do apologize if i offended you.
English