You wrote:
“The Anglicans provide a neutral third party corroborating evidence that the Orthodox did not make up their claim that the Moravians of the 15th century that revolted against Rome did so as orthodox Christians (that is for the church established by the Greek missionaries).”
Incorrect. 1) the Anglicans who wrote the volume in question - I looked at the whole book while you looked at a snippet from Smith apparently - were missionaries. They were not third party. They were actively seeking to overturn the faith of Catholics. This can be seen in Smith’s use of the term “Romanists” which then, as now, was a pejorative term applied to Western Catholics loyal to the pope. Smith was clearly a bigot and it may very well have colored his understanding of history. 2) Smith no where claims in the passages you posted that either John Huss or Hussites were Orthodox.
“I don’t care if you don’t like the evidence.”
It has nothing to do with what I like. What you have posted from Smith DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU KEEP CLAIMING IT SAID. That’s not about my likes of dislikes. That’s what it says. Another source you posted was written by God only knows who and was completely unsubstantiated. It’s useless at best. That’s all you’ve got really.
“I am not trying to change your mind I am trying to show you for a fraud.”
Then you have already failed. Failing to bolster your claims about history in no way proves anything about me. It only proves something about your claims. If you are here to post against me, then you are not only wasting your time. You would also be making it personal, which is a serious mistake on your part.
“From your claim to a PhD to your claim that the Orthodox pulled out of thin air any link to the Moravians.”
Whatever you think about my PhD is completely immaterial to this debate. I already showed - proved conclusively - that the COC claim John Huss as a martyr. You have proved nothing. It’s all on you now. You have failed repeatedly. Will you continue to fail? Do I even need to ask?
“Anyone reading this will now see my evidence and judge accordingly that those making the link to the Moravian people’s Christian origins are justified to include their Greek Christian roots (by Greek I mean eastern Roman Greek rite - which is labeled “orthodox” these days by laymen.”
What? Now, it’s “eastern rite Christians” or even “Orthodox” but “Roman Greek rite”? Your story keeps changing. There was no such thing as “Roman Greek rite”, Nikas. You’re just making stuff up out of thin air.
Are you sure you still want to claim you hold a PhD in history?
You know as well as I do that the eastern Roman empire out of Constantinople was fully THE Roman empire.
What people today call the Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church is officially called The One Catholic Apostolic Church and that Greeks up until recently self-identified as Romans.
In some nations (Arabs, Turks, Persians) variations of the name Roman is what they called the Greeks or "Greek Orthodox Christians".
Greek Rite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic (as opposed to Latin Catholic) all are interchangeable, etc.
See also Mosocow's claim to be the "Third Rome".
What was your thesis on, 'doc'?