quote:People will teach that it is then possible for us to be perfect.
Except that no one teaches this. And why not? Because...
quote:Jesus was born sinless and thus had no sin nature. He was always in communion with the Father.
We are born in sin so we know how hard it is to go without sin for very long. We needed a savior, one's whose credentials were unsmudged.
Right. We agree. But doesn't agreeing on this point negate your conclusion? People are going to open themselves up to devil spirits by denying the Trinity? That's what we all, at our worst, used to say about people who accept the Trinity, remember? In both cases, it's a straw man argument. That's my opinion.
Unitarians (context) don't believe we are perfect or that we can be gods. We know that we are flesh and look forward to the future day when God will change our bodies into immortal bodies. We believe that just as much as you do.
Perhaps if you expanded what you were trying to say, I might understand you better. I don't understand what you just wrote. It's too easy to refute: uncharacteristic of you.
I look forward to the time, when the Bible can be aside and talk about how it applies to particular situational things that would be of interest. Doctrine on Doctrine on Doctrine to me after a while it loses the point of edification. Dont get me wrong im not saying your doing that. I read some of the CES stuff on there web site. For me its just to many things that have no applicational purpose. Anyways, if Lynn wants to engage me in a dispute on doctrine error, I would be glad to do so. After which , if i am going to stick around, it would be fun to discuss some biblical topics, that have application going forward. that is what i look forward to doing with yah because thats what i most enjoy.
My last post was a product of too much work and too little sleep.
After some more sleep:
Walter Cummings taught that if we renewed our minds we could live forever.
By making Jesus into just a man, it brings in doctrines that we can be as good or greater than He. The Way did this. And probably its off shoots.
When this happens, it's a slippery slope down to the point that if put on the mind of Christ we can be "perfect." (I should have used quotation marks originally. Apologies to all.)
The Way's handling of this issue should serve as a wake-up call for us all. Its doctrines and practices, once unhooked from Jesus, began to show signs of demonic influence.
The witch hunts, sexual predations, abuses, WayGb and other paranoia point to this.
The Athletes of the Spirit production was the crowning achievement of this idolatry when it neglected Jesus altogether and focused on the man instead.
I am glad we agree some points, that makes this discussion easier.
By making Jesus into just a man, it brings in doctrines that we can be as good or greater than He. The Way did this. And probably its off shoots.
So it may have been by design all along? I agree with your comment. I always questioned what the motive of it was, because truthfully the doctrine of the trinity is just a paradiam or slogan giving honor. I never really understood there reasonings for ripping it apart.
I think the biggest disservice VP and TWI did was negate the divinity of Jesus. Mere flesh, even if perfect, could not possibly win and buy us back from the God of this earth, as Adam so appropriately proved. When Christ came to earth, he not only had to redeem mankind in the physical, but in the spiritual world - from the God of this world.
Christ was the "perfect" man. This was definitely taught to us by TWI, and that if we worked on "renewing our mind", we could get close to Christ's walk. Some of us (like VP) could maybe someday walk the same way Christ did.
We were definitely taught that with Christ in us and the renewed mind, we could be as he was.
Two things happened I believe because of this doctrine: 1. Eventually people realize no matter how they renew their minds, they just ain't gonna walk as Christ did. This leads to discouragement, a feeling of hopelessness and depression.
2. By having him as a man and "absent" from us now, he is this little mythological figure in the sky somewhere who will eventually come back for us. Therefore, people started living very licensiously. He was not real.
Without a living and "real" Christ, you eventually get into idolitry (of VP and the Bible - because VP was "tapped in" and was the chosen MOG). Since the Bible took the place of the "absent Christ" and VP was the only one who could teach it like it hadn't been known since the 1st century (right), he took Christ's place.
If we had had an inkling that Christ was alive, real, and working now, I think VP would have been greatly kept in check. Now I see ex-twiers absolutely terrified to consider any other viewpoints. God will not be able to teach them the greatness of Christ until they get over their fear. And it is fear.
I totally agree with Jeff USAF RET's thinking – if Jesus, being God, used his divine power to do everything it cheapens his sacrifice and negates any reason for us to identify with him as a human. However, I do believe Jesus Christ IS God and was also a human that walked the earth – but have a different assumption as to the means of his accomplishments – which I think does not demean what he did - instead it reveals phenomenal restraint and unselfishness on his part.
I don't think Jesus ever drew on his divine powers for selfish reasons – in other words to make his job any easier. After fasting for 40 days he was tempted by Satan to change stones into bread – he didn't [Luke 4: 1-4]. In Gethsemane, as his arrest was happening, one of his companions reached for a sword to defend him. Jesus told him to put the sword back and added he could call on the Father to put twelve legions of angels at his disposal [Matthew 26: 47-54].
I don't see any indication in Scripture where Jesus used his divine powers to make his mission a walk in the park, to lessen the sting of blows dealt by the Roman soldiers or be anesthetized from the excruciating pain of crucifixion. I read in Philippians 2: 5-8 that Jesus being in the very nature of God, made himself nothing [literally "emptied himself"] taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
If Jesus Is God, AND he knew this as a fact when he walked th earth as a human - then doesn't this somehow lessen the whole sacrifice aspect. It doesn't seem so easy to die for group if you're unsure of your personal outcome - OTOH if you KNOW you're God and that you'll rise again - well that makes it a bit more palatable - at least there's no doubt as to your fate. (Granted there was still that nasty, awful beating and the unfortunate pain, and the demeaning part of it all - I don't mean to be so glib, but I don't know how else to put it.)
I prefer to let this subject lie in abeyance - tho I tend towards the JCNG POV. God knows who He is and JC knows who He is. They dont' have an identity crisis. I'm asked to recognize both - God is God, JC is His Son and my Lord. It stays much simpler for me this way.
Doojable, that is a very strong point you have [if Jesus was God, knowing the outcome of things - wouldn't it make it easier for him to sacrifice his life]. I also like your pointing out that Jesus didn't have an identity crisis – but obviously some of us [myself very much included] do in trying to figure out who he was/is.
Sometimes I think what's more at issue in the "Jesus: God or not debate" is the validity of what he did for us. And I think that is something that is dealt with on a very personal basis by each of us. On each side of the debate Christians muster up Scripture and logic to prove their point [that he's God/not God] – and maybe what they're saying sometimes is "I am a Christian, I accepted Jesus as my Lord, and what he did means a lot to me because he's God/not God."
I think sometimes that Arians, like TWI and JW's, believe that Trinitarians are Monophysites. And nothing could be farther from the truth.
Mark,
I understand what you’re saying, but I doubt there is a significant number of Wayfers, LSG votaries, or GSC Socinians that could spell Monophysite -- let alone that has an informed view of the Christological differences between Monophysitism and orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity.
I understand what you’re saying, but I doubt there is a significant number of Wayfers, LSG votaries, or GSC Socinians that could spell Monophysite -- let alone that has an informed view of the Christological differences between Monophysitism and orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity.
(btw, Monophysitism states that Jesus was of one substance -- spiritual -- and that His appearance on earth was not a true incarnation (becoming flesh) but was merely a phantasm)
While monophysites did believe that Jesus had but one nature, I believe that it was another group that believed that his physical bvody was an illusion. There were several types of monophysites
While monophysites did believe that Jesus had but one nature, I believe that it was another group that believed that his physical bvody was an illusion. There were several types of monophysites
I believe the particular version to which I was referring was Eutychianism (a part of Monophysitism). But If I'm wrong, I'll be happy for somebody to provide the name of the correct heresy. I guess that you could say Docetism. The point I was trying to drive at was that I distinctly get the impression from those who hold Arian beliefs is that it seems that they think (at least per the majority of the readings I've looked at) that Trinitarians do not acknowledge that Jesus was fully incarnate...and that means fully.
Mark < I see what you're saying, of course. - But i'm trying to say that Jesus as a man - the only begotten son of God - could go into the crucifixion with the trepidation and fear and reluctance that we read about in the Gospels - even though he KNEW this would be necessary and he knew he would be raised again. i find it very difficult to imagine this same state of mind if Jesus Christ is God.
Now I am not so arrogant as to say conclusively that I am right - just that I find it difficult to see things another way...
Now I am not so arrogant as to say conclusively that I am right - just that I find it difficult to see things another way...
I am certainly not trying to put words into anyone person's mouth in particular. I am just relating what I've observed from TWI teachings and from reading links to JAL's writings, etc.
Frankly, I would think that it would be harder. Why? Because he voluntarily took on flesh. Voluntarily. With all of the thoughts, the hormones, the everything else that comes with that. Imagine having the knowledge that you aren't stuck with that, but voluntarily have to deal with it. Imagine you KNOW what is going to come. All of the pain, the agony, the suffering, the mocking, everything. You KNEW what it would be like to be dead. You KNEW how bad it would hurt being scourged. You KNEW the spurning of your own people. And you didn't HAVE to put up with it. You KNEW the feeling of being hunted from birth, that the majority of your people would reject you. That would be horrifying to me. Because for Him, to KNOW is not just to have a grasp of words on parchment, it would be a lifelike knowledge that you'd already experienced it. If you read Rev 5-9, you can see an eternal nature of this sacrifice which shows that, in the heavenly sense, it is a real NOW. (Rev 5:6 "Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain...")...
To voluntarily do that, KNOWING what it is before you do so...in my mind FAR more difficult.
But, like everything else on the Doctrine board, YMMV.
I feel like I could say the same as you just did but with a different POV.
Since Jesus said that he KNEW that at any time he could ask for legions of angels to rescue him - well that still puts him here on a voluntary basis....
As I said I lean towards the POV I've stated - but I toy with both ideas.
I understand what you’re saying, but I doubt there is a significant number of Wayfers, LSG votaries, or GSC Socinians that could spell Monophysite -- let alone that has an informed view of the Christological differences between Monophysitism and orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity.
Cynic, ol' bud, got a question for you. Of all the trinitarians here, you have got to be the most ill-willed of all of them (and of all that I've ever met IMO) towards Unitarians, and I think it goes beyond any academic differences and definitions between the two groups. Now despite your personal dislike of yours truly (me), and our clashes in the past, (here's the question) ...
What is it about unitarianism (specifically the non-trinitariian variety, not the denomination) that gets you so riled? Why is it such a personal offense to you? Is it because its the orthodox thing to do? Get such a bad experience from TWI that the bad feelings have passed on to any form of unitarianism (Socinian, Arian, or what-have-you)? Does the Trinitarian/Unitarian conflict really pose that big a threat to society as we know it?
And I don't think that this post/question derails from this thread, but maybe helps to illustrate why, over 1600 years since the Nicean Council and such, it still sticks in many people's craw. (I used to be one of the battle participants, but have since discarded this clash as being largely a waste of time, particularly with regards to the extent that many folks take it. <_< Ie., frankly, I don't care about the topic anymore, despite that I usually identify myself with unitarians anyway.)
So what say you? And try not to regard this post as a form of 'blood libel', ok?
... but I doubt there is a significant number of Wayfers, LSG votaries, or GSC Socinians that could spell Monophysite -- let alone that has an informed view of the Christological differences between Monophysitism and orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity.
LOL I'm just thinkin' ... if God expected man to be able to define those things (and spell them correctly) before knowing him or jc, wouldn't most be lost?
So if you call someone a socinian, I guess you are saying they follow some guy they never heard of, and no one before the 16th century denied the divinity of Christ? What is LSG? And with all those big words ... "doubt there is a significant number ... that has an informed view ..." should that be "have"? Can a number have a singular view? I'm just saying, if you messed up your tenses, you may be going to hell with those guys that can't spell monophysite.
Anyway, I like the idea of knowing all that junk ... not sure it helps much in understanding the bible ... or life ... but big words can help impress the babes
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
6
10
7
Popular Days
Feb 21
16
Feb 19
11
Jul 14
7
Jul 12
7
Top Posters In This Topic
George Aar 6 posts
GarthP2000 6 posts
Cynic 10 posts
markomalley 7 posts
Popular Days
Feb 21 2006
16 posts
Feb 19 2006
11 posts
Jul 14 2004
7 posts
Jul 12 2004
7 posts
sky4it
sprockets,
sprokets sprokets sprokets
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
george ar:
your comment:
Oh, and BTW, I guess the CORRECT answer from the CES crowd is "NO, it makes him bigger!"
(see 1st post).
He's not God, he's BIGGER than God?
I give up. I just don't get religious thought.
geo.
your comment is funny, very very funny, me enjoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Making Jesus out to be this perfect human smacks of idolatry to me if he is not God.
People will teach that it is then possible for us to be perfect.
Except Jesus was born sinless and thus had no sin nature. He was always in communion with the Father.
We are born in sin so we know how hard it is to go without sin for very long. We needed a savior, one's whose credentials were unsmudged.
By saying Jesus wasn't God, we set ourselves up for demonic influences to prompt us into thinking we are or can be gods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Def,
You lost me there.
Except that no one teaches this. And why not? Because...
Right. We agree. But doesn't agreeing on this point negate your conclusion? People are going to open themselves up to devil spirits by denying the Trinity? That's what we all, at our worst, used to say about people who accept the Trinity, remember? In both cases, it's a straw man argument. That's my opinion.
Unitarians (context) don't believe we are perfect or that we can be gods. We know that we are flesh and look forward to the future day when God will change our bodies into immortal bodies. We believe that just as much as you do.
Perhaps if you expanded what you were trying to say, I might understand you better. I don't understand what you just wrote. It's too easy to refute: uncharacteristic of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Raf:
I look forward to the time, when the Bible can be aside and talk about how it applies to particular situational things that would be of interest. Doctrine on Doctrine on Doctrine to me after a while it loses the point of edification. Dont get me wrong im not saying your doing that. I read some of the CES stuff on there web site. For me its just to many things that have no applicational purpose. Anyways, if Lynn wants to engage me in a dispute on doctrine error, I would be glad to do so. After which , if i am going to stick around, it would be fun to discuss some biblical topics, that have application going forward. that is what i look forward to doing with yah because thats what i most enjoy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Raf
My last post was a product of too much work and too little sleep.
After some more sleep:
Walter Cummings taught that if we renewed our minds we could live forever.
By making Jesus into just a man, it brings in doctrines that we can be as good or greater than He. The Way did this. And probably its off shoots.
When this happens, it's a slippery slope down to the point that if put on the mind of Christ we can be "perfect." (I should have used quotation marks originally. Apologies to all.)
The Way's handling of this issue should serve as a wake-up call for us all. Its doctrines and practices, once unhooked from Jesus, began to show signs of demonic influence.
The witch hunts, sexual predations, abuses, WayGb and other paranoia point to this.
The Athletes of the Spirit production was the crowning achievement of this idolatry when it neglected Jesus altogether and focused on the man instead.
I am glad we agree some points, that makes this discussion easier.
Have a great day Raf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
def:
Your comment:
By making Jesus into just a man, it brings in doctrines that we can be as good or greater than He. The Way did this. And probably its off shoots.
So it may have been by design all along? I agree with your comment. I always questioned what the motive of it was, because truthfully the doctrine of the trinity is just a paradiam or slogan giving honor. I never really understood there reasonings for ripping it apart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I think the biggest disservice VP and TWI did was negate the divinity of Jesus. Mere flesh, even if perfect, could not possibly win and buy us back from the God of this earth, as Adam so appropriately proved. When Christ came to earth, he not only had to redeem mankind in the physical, but in the spiritual world - from the God of this world.
Christ was the "perfect" man. This was definitely taught to us by TWI, and that if we worked on "renewing our mind", we could get close to Christ's walk. Some of us (like VP) could maybe someday walk the same way Christ did.
We were definitely taught that with Christ in us and the renewed mind, we could be as he was.
Two things happened I believe because of this doctrine: 1. Eventually people realize no matter how they renew their minds, they just ain't gonna walk as Christ did. This leads to discouragement, a feeling of hopelessness and depression.
2. By having him as a man and "absent" from us now, he is this little mythological figure in the sky somewhere who will eventually come back for us. Therefore, people started living very licensiously. He was not real.
Without a living and "real" Christ, you eventually get into idolitry (of VP and the Bible - because VP was "tapped in" and was the chosen MOG). Since the Bible took the place of the "absent Christ" and VP was the only one who could teach it like it hadn't been known since the 1st century (right), he took Christ's place.
If we had had an inkling that Christ was alive, real, and working now, I think VP would have been greatly kept in check. Now I see ex-twiers absolutely terrified to consider any other viewpoints. God will not be able to teach them the greatness of Christ until they get over their fear. And it is fear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Here's some insights from another source
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/n.../2003/nov7.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I totally agree with Jeff USAF RET's thinking – if Jesus, being God, used his divine power to do everything it cheapens his sacrifice and negates any reason for us to identify with him as a human. However, I do believe Jesus Christ IS God and was also a human that walked the earth – but have a different assumption as to the means of his accomplishments – which I think does not demean what he did - instead it reveals phenomenal restraint and unselfishness on his part.
I don't think Jesus ever drew on his divine powers for selfish reasons – in other words to make his job any easier. After fasting for 40 days he was tempted by Satan to change stones into bread – he didn't [Luke 4: 1-4]. In Gethsemane, as his arrest was happening, one of his companions reached for a sword to defend him. Jesus told him to put the sword back and added he could call on the Father to put twelve legions of angels at his disposal [Matthew 26: 47-54].
I don't see any indication in Scripture where Jesus used his divine powers to make his mission a walk in the park, to lessen the sting of blows dealt by the Roman soldiers or be anesthetized from the excruciating pain of crucifixion. I read in Philippians 2: 5-8 that Jesus being in the very nature of God, made himself nothing [literally "emptied himself"] taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I wonder....
If Jesus Is God, AND he knew this as a fact when he walked th earth as a human - then doesn't this somehow lessen the whole sacrifice aspect. It doesn't seem so easy to die for group if you're unsure of your personal outcome - OTOH if you KNOW you're God and that you'll rise again - well that makes it a bit more palatable - at least there's no doubt as to your fate. (Granted there was still that nasty, awful beating and the unfortunate pain, and the demeaning part of it all - I don't mean to be so glib, but I don't know how else to put it.)
I prefer to let this subject lie in abeyance - tho I tend towards the JCNG POV. God knows who He is and JC knows who He is. They dont' have an identity crisis. I'm asked to recognize both - God is God, JC is His Son and my Lord. It stays much simpler for me this way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I think sometimes that Arians, like TWI and JW's, believe that Trinitarians are Monophysites. And nothing could be farther from the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Doojable, that is a very strong point you have [if Jesus was God, knowing the outcome of things - wouldn't it make it easier for him to sacrifice his life]. I also like your pointing out that Jesus didn't have an identity crisis – but obviously some of us [myself very much included] do in trying to figure out who he was/is.
Sometimes I think what's more at issue in the "Jesus: God or not debate" is the validity of what he did for us. And I think that is something that is dealt with on a very personal basis by each of us. On each side of the debate Christians muster up Scripture and logic to prove their point [that he's God/not God] – and maybe what they're saying sometimes is "I am a Christian, I accepted Jesus as my Lord, and what he did means a lot to me because he's God/not God."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Mark,
I understand what you’re saying, but I doubt there is a significant number of Wayfers, LSG votaries, or GSC Socinians that could spell Monophysite -- let alone that has an informed view of the Christological differences between Monophysitism and orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity.
*****
Doojable,
If Jesus didn’t know he was going to be raised from the dead, the Gospels need to be rewritten.
*****
T-Bone,
Welcome aboard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well it might get them to google the concept!
(btw, Monophysitism states that Jesus was of one substance -- spiritual -- and that His appearance on earth was not a true incarnation (becoming flesh) but was merely a phantasm)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mark:
While monophysites did believe that Jesus had but one nature, I believe that it was another group that believed that his physical bvody was an illusion. There were several types of monophysites
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Monophysitism
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I believe the particular version to which I was referring was Eutychianism (a part of Monophysitism). But If I'm wrong, I'll be happy for somebody to provide the name of the correct heresy. I guess that you could say Docetism. The point I was trying to drive at was that I distinctly get the impression from those who hold Arian beliefs is that it seems that they think (at least per the majority of the readings I've looked at) that Trinitarians do not acknowledge that Jesus was fully incarnate...and that means fully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mark < I see what you're saying, of course. - But i'm trying to say that Jesus as a man - the only begotten son of God - could go into the crucifixion with the trepidation and fear and reluctance that we read about in the Gospels - even though he KNEW this would be necessary and he knew he would be raised again. i find it very difficult to imagine this same state of mind if Jesus Christ is God.
Now I am not so arrogant as to say conclusively that I am right - just that I find it difficult to see things another way...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I am certainly not trying to put words into anyone person's mouth in particular. I am just relating what I've observed from TWI teachings and from reading links to JAL's writings, etc.
Frankly, I would think that it would be harder. Why? Because he voluntarily took on flesh. Voluntarily. With all of the thoughts, the hormones, the everything else that comes with that. Imagine having the knowledge that you aren't stuck with that, but voluntarily have to deal with it. Imagine you KNOW what is going to come. All of the pain, the agony, the suffering, the mocking, everything. You KNEW what it would be like to be dead. You KNEW how bad it would hurt being scourged. You KNEW the spurning of your own people. And you didn't HAVE to put up with it. You KNEW the feeling of being hunted from birth, that the majority of your people would reject you. That would be horrifying to me. Because for Him, to KNOW is not just to have a grasp of words on parchment, it would be a lifelike knowledge that you'd already experienced it. If you read Rev 5-9, you can see an eternal nature of this sacrifice which shows that, in the heavenly sense, it is a real NOW. (Rev 5:6 "Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain...")...
To voluntarily do that, KNOWING what it is before you do so...in my mind FAR more difficult.
But, like everything else on the Doctrine board, YMMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I feel like I could say the same as you just did but with a different POV.
Since Jesus said that he KNEW that at any time he could ask for legions of angels to rescue him - well that still puts him here on a voluntary basis....
As I said I lean towards the POV I've stated - but I toy with both ideas.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Speaking of demeaning:
Cynic, ol' bud, got a question for you. Of all the trinitarians here, you have got to be the most ill-willed of all of them (and of all that I've ever met IMO) towards Unitarians, and I think it goes beyond any academic differences and definitions between the two groups. Now despite your personal dislike of yours truly (me), and our clashes in the past, (here's the question) ...
What is it about unitarianism (specifically the non-trinitariian variety, not the denomination) that gets you so riled? Why is it such a personal offense to you? Is it because its the orthodox thing to do? Get such a bad experience from TWI that the bad feelings have passed on to any form of unitarianism (Socinian, Arian, or what-have-you)? Does the Trinitarian/Unitarian conflict really pose that big a threat to society as we know it?
And I don't think that this post/question derails from this thread, but maybe helps to illustrate why, over 1600 years since the Nicean Council and such, it still sticks in many people's craw. (I used to be one of the battle participants, but have since discarded this clash as being largely a waste of time, particularly with regards to the extent that many folks take it. <_< Ie., frankly, I don't care about the topic anymore, despite that I usually identify myself with unitarians anyway.)
So what say you? And try not to regard this post as a form of 'blood libel', ok?
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Jesus in not GOD in that he is not Heavenly Father
Jesus is the creator of this world and Jehovah of the Old Testament
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
A view, templelady, not exclusive to your group. Very nearly orthodox...
(It used to bother me when I found my views becoming increasingly orthodox)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
LOL I'm just thinkin' ... if God expected man to be able to define those things (and spell them correctly) before knowing him or jc, wouldn't most be lost?
So if you call someone a socinian, I guess you are saying they follow some guy they never heard of, and no one before the 16th century denied the divinity of Christ? What is LSG? And with all those big words ... "doubt there is a significant number ... that has an informed view ..." should that be "have"? Can a number have a singular view? I'm just saying, if you messed up your tenses, you may be going to hell with those guys that can't spell monophysite.
Anyway, I like the idea of knowing all that junk ... not sure it helps much in understanding the bible ... or life ... but big words can help impress the babes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.