Oh, so you study the history of the thing but not the thing itself. Okay, I get it.
..anyway, the subject is one of history plainly enough in some sense, but that's okay. Never mind then.
Maybe you're willing to tolerate the sight of Reggie getting unhorsed without rating his dismount, but I for one am not.
Anyone who claims an ability to study the history of Europe and the middle east without getting ass deep into theology, probably couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the sole of it.
Better summon a couple of stable boys to help
@Reggie_Essent get back on his feet. He's encumbered by armor, and sitting in a pile of horse manure.
Pffft! Your meat shielding is pathetic.
Tell me, Levon, does this garbled and confused question make any sense to you in relation to my earlier expounding upon the development of the concept of the Trinity in the late Roman Empire?:
"... the Trinity (a part of the way back) but how it interacted with the Virgin in the creation of the material universe/nature (the myth of the virgin birth)."
I don't know how the "Virgin" interacted in the creation of the material universe/nature vis a vis the development of the concept of the Trinity in the 4th and 5th centuries. Do you?
I suspect Holliday was dipping into the cooking brandy again when he made that poast, but perhaps a world class Theologian like you could answer him.
Start a thread about it. If I find it interesting, I might weigh in.
I came back into the thread on page 5, after an earlier comment and skipping a few pages. My comment was specifically about your assertion that you had studied history but not theology. It's clear from your later comments since then that you have indeed studied theology, to the degree that church doctrine is a rudimentary attempt at theology. And of course, some of your comments do address church history as I understand it, in all its crapitude. And I probably agree with some of your statements about that.
As for meat shielding, I do sort of get the general nature of what Holliday is propounding, but he's talking about metaphysics and not really theology as we mostly use the term (because none of us seem to have studied philosophy very hard.) I'm not in the thread to support HIS stuff either, because frankly he drinks a bit sometimes, as most of us are wont to do, and I regard his metaphysics as harmless enough.
I wll just caution everybody that the Bible (the canon bible, the sacred 66, as well as a lot of other writings that have been lost to us and/or excluded from the canon) are loaded with symbolic language that should not really be taken literally, as well as literal language that should perhaps be taken symbolically, and that it takes either a fuck ton of discernment to sort such things out, or some dumb luck, or maybe some REALLY DEEP LIFETIMES of study. Bottom line, a lot of stuff in there is not really saying what it SAYS it is saying.
People who don't get that have literally been killing each other over it for millennia. And this forum is probably not a venue that I care to utilize for arguing about it.