>>>>Again, please read http://www.skiens.com/truth/truth.htm. and it becomes clear what likely happened.
>>>
>>>This is what they call "The Truth"? I read this excerpt (for instance) and just fall besides my chair for laughing:
>>>
>>>"... When being taught about the virgin birth they are directed to Matthew and Luke. When being taught about other aspects they are directed to the Gospel or Gospels concerned - as if they were all intended to be constituent chapters of the same overall work - which of course they were not. The immaculate conception was not included into Catholic dogma until 1958!! "
>>>
>>>Just look up the Catholic Doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception", this has absolute nothing to do with the "Virgin Birth of Jesus". It is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, indeed introduced at a much later time, which teaches that Mary was born from a virgin. Today this is one of the main Catholic dogmas, and very important to their faith, because they teach that Mary was without sin and therefore, instead of inheriting the sin from her blood line, was born by a virgin.
>>>
>>>And because of that it is one of the most important doctrines of the Catholic church, because they stress on the status of Mary being a "Holy Mother of God". Only a complete fool would have missed that, so we wonder? How much else of the "Truth" article is just complete foolishness?
>>
>>I doubt it would contain more foolishness than what is written literally in the bible. The author of the referred book was very thourough and did do a lot of research about other sources that describes the history in palestine, cultural,political and economically. It offers a much more reasonable explanation and insight of events written in the bible that after all were selected and manipulated for obvious reasons over the course of centuries.
>>
>>If you wish to believe something else, I'll respect that, but laughing at anything that tells an alternative story say more about a fixed mind rather than being open minded for reasonable explanations.
>>
>>Walter,
>
>I don't laugh about just any alternative story, I just find it ridiculous to call a paper the "Truth" and then to make such a blunt error that shows that this person has no clue about the Roman Catholic doctrines. The Immaculate Conception is probably "THE" most sacred dogma of the Catholic Church, defended most heartedly by Pope John Paul II and many others. There is no way anybody could miss that who has spent at least some time in research.
>
>This is the only paragraph in the mentioned article where the writer found it such a big thing so he added two exclamation marks (!!) at the end. That indicates he must have found this "truth" so outrageous, he took special attention to it. On the other hand, he completely forgot to mention that the Bible was on the censorship index of the Roman Catholic church for centuries, and it was forbidden for any lay man to read that book. Does this perhaps have anything to do with the strange doctrines that this church teaches?
>
>I can imagine errors can happen, but not on such a large scale, and especially not when you would try to correct someone else's "mistakes". One error does not solve another error, it's like buggy software, it just won't work.

Okay and now it's time to beat up the Qur'an and it's followers.