NameIess

I got today's Cosmeredle in 4 tries! Try and beat me at https://cosmeredle.net/

I got today's Cosmeredle in 4 tries! Try and beat me at https://cosmeredle.net/

I got today's Cosmeredle in 5 tries! Try and beat me at https://cosmeredle.net/

Dalinar’s racism?

I got today's Cosmeredle in 5 tries! Try and beat me at https://cosmeredle.net/

Jesus prays that the church would have the same unity with one another as He has with God the Father. He prays that God the Father would love the church just as he loves Jesus the son. Neither of those are a statement that all humans are fully God as Jesus is. Without any context this prayer could be read that way, but such a reading is not consistent with the rest of the scriptures. Even in the prayer itself there are questions you would have to answer. For example: Why would Jesus want his followers to see His personal glory (glory given by God the Father, which is another question you'd have to answer) if they also are fully God? Should he not pray that they would see the glory in themselves? Here's a question: How accurate a retelling of Jesus' life do you think the gospels give? How accurate are the events described in the Bible as a whole?

Feel good about this one.

Jesus is praying that Christians will be united with one another so that the world will see that unity and know the truth of the gospel.

I believe the Bible is infallibly true and that contradicts the Bible, so it is an incorrect way of thinking about God.

The heresy there would be believing that Jesus was divested of Godhood when he became human. Jesus is fully man, but also fully God.

I think the difference lies in that saying 'Jesus is God' is an part of the affirmation of the Trinity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. They're all God, (and there's only one God) but they are three separate persons. Saying 'God is Jesus' can be interpreted in a couple different ways that reject the trinity. It could be saying that Jesus is the sole person in the Godhead, or it could mean that Jesus is just a form of God, or it could be saying something else like that. Perhaps some more context about the book's concept of radical Christianity would help pin down the exact difference. Jesus claimed to be God, not a prophet. But yes, He did reveal a new revelation, and the writers of the New Testament did write what at the time would've been new inspired words of God. What I meant was that Christian groups split off from one another not because someone revealed new revelations from God, but because they disagreed on theology and interpretation of the Bible. I wasn't aware of the origins of the Seventh Day Adventists. That does throw a wrench in my point, although it doesn't look like she contradicted any essential doctrines. (although the group did reject the trinity initially). Yes, I would like to see that when you do it.