is this correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter syilla
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 5
  • Views Views 3K
syilla said:
:sl:

http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/holds.php?itemid=1360

i'm very bad with history...but i don't think the facts are right.

if not would you leave a comment in the blog...and tell me which are correct.

wassallam
Click to expand...
I can't say anything on the topic but this impressed me:
" For example, the Romans, who in 451 declared Jesus to be fully God and fully man, viewed all those Christians from Arabia as heretics. The Modalist Christians however considered the Trinity as representing three successive modes -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nestorian Christians argued that Jesus had two distinct natures -- one human and the other divine. The Gnostic Christians in turn claimed that Jesus only appeared human but is in fact God. On the other end of the scale, the Arians rejected the Trinity altogether."Thats really confusing:confused:I had no idea were so many christians.
 
Tania said:
I can't say anything on the topic but this impressed me:
" For example, the Romans, who in 451 declared Jesus to be fully God and fully man, viewed all those Christians from Arabia as heretics. The Modalist Christians however considered the Trinity as representing three successive modes -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nestorian Christians argued that Jesus had two distinct natures -- one human and the other divine. The Gnostic Christians in turn claimed that Jesus only appeared human but is in fact God. On the other end of the scale, the Arians rejected the Trinity altogether."Thats really confusing:confused:I had no idea were so many christians.
Click to expand...

yeah..it is confusing...

but i think he is a 'somebody'.
 
This is what is called aguing by an over presentation of information. The article is not intended to be debatable, it is a mass onslaught of misinformation combined with some facts and called a presentation.

You don't attempt to argue or refute something like that, you simply shrug your shoulders and admit you do not have the faintest idea as to what is attempted to be said.

This follows the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with Brilliance, baffle them with nonsense." The author did that quite well.
 
Woodrow said:
This is what is called aguing by an over presentation of information. The article is not intended to be debatable, it is a mass onslaught of misinformation combined with some facts and called a presentation.

You don't attempt to argue or refute something like that, you simply shrug your shoulders and admit you do not have the faintest idea as to what is attempted to be said.

This follows the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with Brilliance, baffle them with nonsense." The author did that quite well.
Click to expand...

waa....i did not know that.

Anyway jazakallah khayr.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top