This is very insulting, although sadly not surprising to see.
actually I was refering to the fact that they could quote the scriptures but never really knew what they ment, so that when the truth did come and hit them in the Face they didn't recognise Him.
If this is even true, we should remember that the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible either. So? Your quip doesn't tell us whether the concept is present or not.
Yes but we know that there are three parts of God.
Ummm -- professional scholars do not "change certain words" because "nobody" would know what they ment. Translation is a bit more complicated than that, and of course people living centuries ago did not have the access to the amount of materials or knowledge of the ANE that we have today.
I was refering to them changing them so that it would make more sense to the reader.
This is, ironically, not true. Some religions do not believe in hell.
Yes really? which ones?
don't keep them to yourself, please share!
actually, I was bought up a catholic, so I know about many of their sorded beliefs which are unbilical and some that even go directlly against the teaching of the in the Bible.
All of those except for one are a strawman. I will thank you not to mock them unless you would like your beliefs berated.
actually, I was bought up a catholic, so I know about many of their sorded beliefs which are unbilical and some that even go directlly against the teaching of the in the Bible.
if you are going to say something isn't true, then a least provide some examples or evidence, I know I am.
The priests were not the only ones "allowed to read" the Bible. This was before the printing press and even before the split in 1054. You cannot fault Christians for wanting to preserve their work by -- oh, say -- chaining copies of a finished copy of the Bible to a wall because of the work, time, and effort invested in faithfully copying manuscripts. These Bibles, BTW, were open to everyone to read, but they were obviously not of the library "check-it-out-and-go" variety.
ok then If that is the case I do stand corrected, but that does no change the fact the it was in latten, and who the Hell amongst the people could speak latten or even read for that matter?
This is an insane comparison. The Church never systematically hunted down and killed a race. Even "atrocities" like the Inquisition were not race-oriented and still nothing like the Holocaust or Stalin's death camps.
these people did insanely evil things that the Nazis would have been proud of, but a least the Nazis did not have the Hide to claim that it was in the name of God.
your little rebuttle is just nitpicking, the fact these things were done in the name of religion insted of racial hatred makes little difference, they were still performed out of the evil of mens hearts!
If you want to complain about something that some members of the Catholic Church
once engaged in, you can talk about indulgences and simony, but certainly not extermination.
actually I was using this supposed people of God as an example.
the are certainly not the only ones.
the teachers of the law who were God's own chosen people and they murded Him!
both had knowledge of the scriptures, but few had understanding.
God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise apparrently!
The rest of your diatribe is beyond this thread's scope; we are talking about universalism here, not the Church.
