Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
Exactly do you think Tek's teaching is Oneness as you teach it? I alsothought of this scenario this morning, BD ...
would you like Teks writings to be included with UPCI teaching?
This is what I mean when I say that including the teachings of some of the past witnesses you have provided would mean that you have tacitly accepted their teaching to represent yours.
|
No, I would not want Tek's teaching included with ours, but you have to understand that he was indeed one who associated with us at one time. And if history did indeed associate the entire oneness movement of today with Tek's writings, then they would come to a less that accurate conclusion as to what we believe. And I perceive that is what has happened with many "oneness" movements in the past. Their detractors (the trinitarians), have "preserved" the writings of that segment that are obviously non-representative of the movement as a whole, and then broad-brush paint the entire movement as associated with that spurious segment. And in my mind such were the Albigenses and cathari, the Paulicians, Bogamils, and so forth and so on. I do see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying?
Threaded Mode
