Really? Did you forget what you said then? I say, say what you mean, and mean what you say.
You said: ""The Church of the East has had the scriptures in Aramaic from the start, yet that didn't stop them from developing schisms and heresy."
Did you mean to say it that way, and do you mean what you said there, or not?
If you read your own statement there, it seems clear that you are saying that The Church of the East "developed schisms and heresy." The Church of the East is made up of many Christians. Which schisms and heresy do you say they are guilty of?
Now, if you didn't mean to say that, and misspoke, then say so. Otherwise, it seems very clear what you believe, or may have read someplace and thought was true.
If you really believe what you said there, then that is why I am challenging you. Because it certainly is not at all true. The Aramaic Scriptures have no heresy in them, nor does The Church of the East teach any heresy, or has caused any schisms.
You now say: "What I said is that the whole history is littered with sects calling each other heretics, causing schisms and killing each other. They all had the Aramaic scriptures. It didn't stop them from expressing sinful human nature. That is my point."
That statement isn't true either. And if that was your point with the previous statement, the two statements don't equate in the slightest.
You called my statement "a blatant untruth", where I said: "The Church of the East didn't develop any schism, or any heresy,"
Show me how it is an untruth. You said my statement can't be left unchallenged, and so, I say show me how it is wrong at all.
I'm not angry at you, I just don't want what I say, and both the history of The Church of the East and what it teaches, to be misjudged, or said to be untruth.
By the way, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
Shlama
.
You said: ""The Church of the East has had the scriptures in Aramaic from the start, yet that didn't stop them from developing schisms and heresy."
Did you mean to say it that way, and do you mean what you said there, or not?
If you read your own statement there, it seems clear that you are saying that The Church of the East "developed schisms and heresy." The Church of the East is made up of many Christians. Which schisms and heresy do you say they are guilty of?
Now, if you didn't mean to say that, and misspoke, then say so. Otherwise, it seems very clear what you believe, or may have read someplace and thought was true.
If you really believe what you said there, then that is why I am challenging you. Because it certainly is not at all true. The Aramaic Scriptures have no heresy in them, nor does The Church of the East teach any heresy, or has caused any schisms.
You now say: "What I said is that the whole history is littered with sects calling each other heretics, causing schisms and killing each other. They all had the Aramaic scriptures. It didn't stop them from expressing sinful human nature. That is my point."
That statement isn't true either. And if that was your point with the previous statement, the two statements don't equate in the slightest.
You called my statement "a blatant untruth", where I said: "The Church of the East didn't develop any schism, or any heresy,"
Show me how it is an untruth. You said my statement can't be left unchallenged, and so, I say show me how it is wrong at all.
I'm not angry at you, I just don't want what I say, and both the history of The Church of the East and what it teaches, to be misjudged, or said to be untruth.
By the way, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
Shlama
.