If your point wan't that numbers prove doctrine, why did you bring it up?  Why mention how many groups follow it vs. how many don't?


Just to try and give some perspective on the scope of orthodoxy you are opposing. Do you believe Christ's church was so fundamentally in error on such a fundamental doctrine for so long, and only extremely rare instances of individuals throughout history had the truth?

Earlier in this thread, I asked you where you draw the line on an acceptable definition of Christ. I said (and would still like an answer):
FHII, I am not saying you are not saved (it is God's call, not mine), but the point is simple: the definition of who Christ is, is vitally important in "believing" in him. If a man says "I believe in Jesus" but by "Jesus" he means a rubber duck, is his faith valid? No. If a man says "I believe in Jesus" but by "Jesus" he means a good human teacher and nothing more, is his faith valid? No. If a man says "I believe in Jesus" but by "Jesus" he means an created angel, is his faith valid? No. If a man says "I believe in Jesus" but by "Jesus" he means something other than what, by definition, the church has explained and maintained throughout history, is his faith valid? Where do you draw the line? The line drawn by the Christian church was (and is) acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Brian