I think you missed my point. Among Jesus' contemporaries, he was largely rejected by the intellectual elites among his co-religionists. The common folk had no problem believing in him. But the clergy did not believe he was the promised messiah.
I can think of two reasons why they'd reject him.
Number one, he taught things that contradicted their principle tenants. For example he said that those who honor their father and mother more than him were not worthy of God's Kingdom. There are lots of examples of this.
Number two, the rumors. John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. Mary's sister Elizabeth was married to Zacharias, a priest at the temple. They all knew each other and they also knew that Mary became pregnant before her betrothal. It must have been rumored at the time that Jesus was an illegitimate child.
Picture this obvious heretic and possibly illegitimate child going before the temple leaders and claiming to be sent to them by God. They had good reasons, according to their understanding, to disbelieve Jesus.
Hence, imperfect knowledge can be an obstacle to understanding. The religious leaders of the time did not understand God's providence as it was unfolding and so they blew their opportunity. He WAS the one they were waiting for after all.
To answer your question then, should we be heterodox (as regards the 2nd coming)? (def: contrary to or different from an acknowledged standard, a traditional form, or an established religion) It would have helped the religious leaders at the time had they taken an unorthodox view because Jesus, by any definition of the time, appeared as unorthodox as possible.
Finally, heterodoxy is not the same as ignorance. It is more like healthy skepticism.
Tell me, on the basis of what you've said, why is Moon preferable to Benny Hinn? Do you even have a reason?
I don't know much about Benny Hinn but Rev. Moon has developed a comprehensive, logical and insightful theology that includes a rational overview of providential history from the beginning. Exposition of the Divine Principle It's good reading.
There's also a theological seminary @ http://www.uts.edu/
Furthermore, there is a philosophical institute with an intro to Moon's Ontology, epistimology, axiology, ethics, theory of history and so forth at Unification Thought Institute.
Regards
In case you haven't noticed, most "common folk" have no trouble rejecting Moon as a loonie.
And, YET AGAIN, all of David Koresh's followers were ordinary people, not scholars. Ditto Jim Jones. Ditto all of them. You cannot defend your guy on these grounds without defending all of them, and then you'll be blown around from one fruitcake to the next, instead of sticking with just one.
Hence, imperfect knowledge can be an obstacle to understanding.
So what do you commend instead? No knowledge at all? Just trust the Leader? But you haven't given any reason for picking one leader over any other.
I don't know much about Benny Hinn but Rev. Moon has developed a comprehensive, logical and insightful theology that includes a rational overview of providential history from the beginning.
You don't know much about Hinn. But you still implicitly reject him by following Moon. But what about all the people in Jesus' day who never went to hear Him because they were content with the rabbi they already had? You don't want to be like them, do you? And what does Moon's alleged philosophical sophistication have to do with it? In the first place, you don't strike me as the one to judge. In the second place, none of that matters if Moon's claims for himself are wrong.
All you argued for so far is following fringe religious leaders, but you haven't given any reason for picking your fringe religious leader. But beyond that, the argument itself is incredibly weak. If an apparently fringe leader is RIGHT, we have every reason to believe God will cause that teaching to prosper and thereby stop being fringe. Unless God changes His mind, the right thing is then to following a mainstream teaching -- but still the same teaching. That would be Trinitarian Christianity.