Catholics will defend this
Catholics will defend this
Brayden Cruz
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
biblelight.net
twitter.com
Wyatt Thomas
At least they don't worship a dead jew on a stick.
Michael Scott
>At least they don't worship a dead jew on a stick.
Yes they do
Ryder Price
>Catholics will defend this
The 14th century original manuscript which survives to this day doesn't contain those words.
It's a 16th-17th century anti-Catholic forgery.
Lucas Taylor
/thread
Nathaniel Jackson
OP BTFO
next thread
Noah Williams
>Catholics will defend this
No we won't because it's false
Kayden Carter
No they don't, Catholics eat that dead Jew on a stick and drink his blood as part of their Stanic rituals
Gavin Hill
There's nothing satanic about the Catholic faith
Caleb Kelly
Christianity can be proven false with a simple reading of the Hebrew scriptures.
Carson Baker
Landon Jackson
>There's nothing satanic about the One True Faith
Fixed that for you. Need to spell it out in no uncertain terms for the benefit of heathens, apostates, and heretics.
Liam Long
John Perez
Even your own source point out the oldest version of the manuscript doesn't contain Deum.
Brody Nelson
It doesn't matter if it is original or not, because it means that high level Catholic scholars saw it and approved of it as orthodox.
Isaac Jones
I've read this six times and I still don't know what they're getting at.
Ryder Young
>our Lord God the Pope
Elijah Parker
It wasn't noticed at the time and ended up just mindlessly copied, they were just a few shitty editors.
It doesn't appear in the original manuscript, then (over two centuries later) it appears in a few editions in a row in the 16th century and possibly early 17th century, then disappears altogether from all later editions.
The first time anyone actually explicitly noticed and commented on the error was in the 18th century, so it's not like it was openly known and accepted.
Jack Hernandez
It say the Pope is God.
Jayden Lopez
>this special pleading
wew
Landon Torres
What special pleading? Errors persist over multiple editions of works all the time, and most of them tend to have some form of editorial oversight.
It would be one thing if the error was noticed and commented upon at the time and kept despite that, but that's not the case.
It's simply parsimonious to assume that a bit of unusual wording appearing in a several editions (and neither in original, earlier editions, or later ones) of a work of secondary importance out of an ocean of writings represents a printing error/editorial oversight rather than an overturning of orthodox doctrine.