WRONG.
1. I gave you
FIVE links
debunking Hislop's excrement:
The Two Babylons | Christian Research Institute
Hislop's Babylonian Mystery Religion Teaching Exposed
https://www.scribd.com/document/363776878/an-lsm-myth-debunked-nimrod-madonna-the-two-babylons
Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" is Not Reliable
Nimrod & Alexander Hislop DEBUNKED (THE TRUTH about Nimrod, Hislop & Semiramis)
2. WRONG.
Limbo was
ALWAYS just a way of tryinhg to
reason what happens to the unbaptized child.
3. As I
proved to you - the idea of
Final Purification (Purgatory) and praying for the
dead finds its origins in Judaism and the OT
(2 Macc. 42-46). And
again - it is
also taught in the NT
(1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32-35 and
Luke 12:58-59).
4. Eating
meat was
NEVER the issue. It was
ALWAYS about
disobedience and a
rejection of the truth.
YOUR ignorance is
noted . . .
5. NOWHERE does the Church teach that wearing a brown scapular
alone wil save you. That's an anti-Catholic
LIE.
6. The Church
NEVER sold indulgences. this was an
ABUSE that was comitted by a
few people like
Johann Tetzel in Germany.
Do your
homework.
Oh - and people were forbidden from
TRANSATING unauthorized versions of the
Bible into different languages.
The
reason for this was
BAD translations and
perverted doctrine - like the ones
YOU practice . . ..
1. Woodrow uses false arguments to prove HIs point.
I showed you history that shows Nimrod was both son and husband of semiramis.
I don't agree with all conclusions of Hislop as I told you.
2. Well the RC church owned Limbo- they promulgated it enough. And if I remember correctly- Vatican 2 did away with Limbo.
3. . Purgatory is not proved by Maccabees. YOu have no clues as to what the Jews believed if you think that justified purgatory.
4.. so by making eating meat a mortal sin the church was testing obedience and acceptance of truth? Really???? God decides what sin is- not some organization.
5. I can pull that quote from a catholic source as well. I was Catholic and have it in my Catholic action bible! I could even pull it off teh back of a brown Scapular!
6. I did my homework and you are lying! The church sold all sorts of indulgences! TEtzel was just extreme about it, but He went via permission from HIs Cardinal!
7. Ah the defense of a Cad! When you lie about your beliefs and get caught- then vomit out ad-hominems! Is there a school where many of you go to learn how to do it?
Roman Catholic Church. It forbade possession of Bible translations in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish, as well as some in Latin. Any who wanted to read the Bible were told to obtain written permission from bishops or inquisitors—not an appealing prospect for those who wanted to remain above suspicion of heresy.
People who dared to possess or distribute Bibles in the common languages of their region had to contend with the ire of the Catholic Church. Many were arrested, burned at the stake, roasted on spits, sentenced to life in prison, or sent to the galleys. Confiscated Bibles were burned. Indeed, Catholic priests continued to confiscate and burn Bibles well into the 20th century.
This is not to say that Protestantism has been a real friend and defender of the Bible. In the 18th and 19th centuries, some Protestant theologians championed techniques of study that came to be known as higher criticism. In time, many people accepted teachings influenced by Darwinian theories that life was not created but somehow appeared by chance and evolved without a Creator.
Theologians, and even many clergymen, taught that the Bible is largely based on legend and myth. As a result, it is not uncommon today to hear Protestant clergymen, as well as many of their parishioners, disavow the Bible, saying it is unhistorical.
Bernard Starr, Contributor
College Professor (Emeritus, City University of N.Y),psychologist, journalist.
Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years
05/20/2013 02:57 pm ET
Updated Jul 20, 2013
Book with chains
The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials
adopted different texts and gospels. That’s why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as
the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.
Wouldn’t you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to
eliminate competing Gospels? And wouldn’t the best way of spreading the “good news” be to ensure that every Christian had direct access to the Bible?
That’s not what happened. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own — a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.
Yet, a different model already existed in Judaism. Dating back to the Exodus, Moses ordained public readings of the Torah, according to Jewish Roman historian Flavius Josephus: “...every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Torah and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge.” That practice later became standard in synagogue services, in which the Old Testament (Torah) is read over a year in sequence,
covering the entire Bible. In fact, as a practicing Jew, Jesus read the weekly
parsha (section of the Torah) at the Sabbath services that he regularly attended: “And he went to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).
Since the Church sequestering their sanctioned Bible from the populace makes no sense, I was not surprised that some readers bristled when I recently wrote about the historic prohibitions against Christians reading the New Testament on their own, or worse, translating the Bible into a native language. One called me a liar. That too was not surprising. A few years earlier I gave a talk at an American Psychological Association meeting and afterwards lunched with a group of young Christians, some of whom also challenged my statements about the Bible prohibitions. I later
sent them references documenting my claims, but never heard back from them. I’ve always wondered how they reacted to the citations I sent, which included:
Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”
Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”
Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was
burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church
forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.
The church forbade people. Superficially in some cases it was to protect from bad translations, But Tyndale, Hus, Wycliffe were linguistic scholars.
Learn your history.
