<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Son of Witz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sonofwitz@butcherbaker.org">sonofwitz@butcherbaker.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
This is all very interesting.<br>
I don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of Christ, especially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the oldest, most traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox.<br>
And even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the Creed, and it's the Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Heterodox the RCC may be in Orthodox eyes, but not in its christology. In that, at least, the Catholics & Orthodoxen are in full agreement. And inserting "filioque" into the Creed was just the straw that broke the camel's back; there had been a long series of misunderstandings and strains on fellowship before then, on both sides.<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br>Matt +<br><br>Let early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to find out the natural bent.<br> Plato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537<br><br>