They were confined to studying only one creed. They have no pertinence to a survey such as the one proposed here whatsoever.Quahom1 said:Sounds like it was done (at least in the western world...twice). But seems to be ignored by other intelligent minds for some reason. There were two counsils. They have no merit?
That is a matter of opinion. IMO, the only figures that may be genuinely close to deity -- if there is really any such thing as closeness to deity -- are founders/inspirers at the outset of established creeds. All the most thoughtful, the most prayerful exegesis coming after may or may not be close, but that closeness can sometimes be second-hand, sometimes not. Only a Buddha or a Christ present manifestly original insights that come unequivocally from inside them -- or directly from the metaphysical. All the rest may be.........footnotes?Quahom1 said:Sort of like stating that the forefathers were spitting in the wind, when they were actually closer to "God" then than we are today.
Again, apples and oranges, since you're referring to exegesis within one tradition only. I would share your sentiments entirely if you were referring to original founders/inspirers like Buddha or Christ.Quahom1 said:Sort of like telling "dad" he doesn't know squat, when he was around long before we were born...