Hill, you already conceded that EO theosis is wrong when you conceded that the saints do not become identical to the Lord. Yet it was shown to you that Maximus very explicitly says and then elaborates that they do become identical to the Lord, twice in the same passage. You then put your head into the sand and claimed “kai tauton auto” doesn’t mean that “and identical to him” even though that’s very obviously what it means. You aren’t a serious interlocutor, you’re doing your own religion a disservice by continuing to speak after showing you don’t know the first thing about EO. Sit down and learn about your own religion first.

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:

Double standards for the double-minded Christ-dividers. The fact that that “man” felt so free to publicly threat in a bragging way one of his own religious body’s seminarians just goes to show how unchecked the hierarchy of the Byzantines is. Time will tell if he’s disciplined.

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…

Yet again, Ted complains about St Basil the Great refuting his religion, since his canons recommend to reject certain decisions of Rome out of pastoral care. Also, he is ignorant of the fact that these Basilian canons are accepted by Trullo and thus 2 Nicaea, and as such are infallible. St Basil the Great 3 - Ted 0. Not a close contest.

Uh oh, St Basil says that Rome not only isn’t infallible, but that if they forbid baptizing the schismatics/heretics, that he recommends ignoring them and baptizing them anyways. Also, he attests that Nicaea’s canon is about economy (meaning it’s consistent with the Cyprianic-Dionysian-Basilian-Severian doctrine), and that he himself has the freedom to baptize Novatians anyways. It looks like Ted’s incoherent rambling is yet again, well, incoherent. I recommend he sticks to what he’s good at; posting stuff about the Walmart-brand Eastern Catholics. St Basil the Great 2 - Ted 0.

St Basil the Great vs Ted:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Comments like this just go to show that the Nestorians best expose themselves. Notice how this guy is saying that his heterodox faith is being attacked based off of 2 statements in the picture: 1) That St Cyril/his council of Ephesus accepted Alexandrian Miaphysite Christology. 2) That there was varied acceptance of this Christology during and after 451. None of those 2 statements are even objected to within a Chalcedonian framework. The heretics are always saying that they accept an “orthodox interpretation” of St Cyril’s Miaphysitism, and yet this poor fellow wants to reverse this? Also, the heretics’ own Three Chapters (of Chalcedon) controversy was a self-admission that a letter contained in Chalcedon’s minutes (letter to Mari) was an insufficient level of acceptance of St Cyril. The fact that you even had a controversy about the Three Chapters (of Chalcedon) proves that the second statement bears truth. Once again, the best exposition of the heretics is their own insanity. But by all means, do not prevent yourself from reading the work on account of this.

Duly noted good sir!

You should know that St Jerome takes the position that St Dionysius’ policy is dogmatically in accordance with St Cyprian, and he notes that he defended St Cyprian’s dogma against Stephen of Rome. You evidently did not read St Jerome, for he nowhere says that Stephen was right, and testifies to the veracity of Sts Cyprian and Dionysius being against Stephen but with each other. But alas, you’re caught up in the lies of Rome, which doesn’t even know whether baptism in the name of the Trinity is required, or if the name of Christ only suffices.

“St Jerome says Stephen was right and Cyprian was wrong, why do you think he didn’t regard Stephen’s sainthood?” St Jerome says that “blessed Cyprian” applied the lash to Stephen’s (no saintly honorifics) “errors, which had become inveterate by usage.” Apparently in your world St Jerome believed that every day is Opposite Day: “But if anyone thinks it open to question whether heretics were always welcomed by our ancestors, let him read the letters of the blessed Cyprian in which he applies the lash to Stephen, bishop of Rome, and his errors which had grown inveterate by usage.” St. Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 27

This costs less than $4 from Chipolte and it’s my go-to, but when they run out of side cups apparently they use actual bowls! #GodProvides #Chiptole

In case you needed any more proof that the Nestorians worship the holy fire like Zoroastrians, this guy who labels himself a subdeacon is unironically saying it is “The Uncreated Light.” He just said that it is God. These people are pagans, not “another family of orthodoxy.”