Historical Objectivity of Rome

[Dr. Walter]

It is obvious all your training is one sided - Rome's side - and you have never done any indepth investigation or even gave any serious consideration to do so.

What makes you think there is no evidence for Anabaptists and their beliefs during the dark ages and previous periods??? There are scores of historians that provide more than sufficient evidence to prove that evangelicals existed outside Rome whose beliefs are recorded to reject the church and its sacraments as salvational.

Have you ever read Martyr's Mirror? Fox's book of Martyr's, Pre-16th century Waldenses confessions of faith. The scores of Baptist histories??? Of course not because they have the stigamtism of Rome and Reformed Rome against them because they expose both.

I have been on both sides of this issue and for you to say there is no evidence for those who oppose Rome is a joke.

Moreover, what in the world do you mean that the gospel has changed??????? ANY OTHER GOSPEL is accursed and cannot save anyone (Gal. 1:8-9) and Christ promised that the one and only gospel would be used in making disciples "till the end of the world." Are you serious in that denial????

I answered your last question in my prevous post you may not have read it. And I also suggested to you the answer to your first question. IF historians were more equal in their historical assesment in favor of your position I may give it more consideration. However, its a landslide they do not. If evidence were to support the suppossition that baptist like todays' baptist were from the very begining you would have more historians on your band wagon which indicates to me there is an issue here. Archeoligal finds like the one at Miggido or at Dura Europis disagree with your assesment.

also note through out history there has always been an attempt to wipe out traces of enemies. Let me give you a for instance. The Egyptian Empire was biased against women leaders yet they could not (as much as they attempted) to get rid of all traces of Hatshepsut the first female Pharoah. Yet as thorough as they were we have evidence of her existance during 1473-1458 BCE. Christianity more than any other group of people have the majority of historical documents of anyone world wide yet insist that every document for the baptist has been burned that is unlikely. For instance the gnostic writers were actively sought and their works burned by rome but look at the historical find in Egypt at Nag Hammurabi! You have no such thing for the baptist. Why is that? Because their existance did not coincide with the ECF or any other group before the Reformation period except maybe in Wales. This is actual history the Greeks attempted to wipe out any memory of Troy yet we have Homer and we have the city itself actually dug out of the ground in Turkey. You have no such thing for the baptist.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Bob, you make excellent points in both of your posts. Anyone who has some objectivity and studied BOTH sides of this issue cannot help to see the Roman bias if they have any objectivity.

I would suggest a third category.

Thomas Bokenkotter is a Catholic and a historian of the Catholic church. His book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" reveals some non-flattering details of history for which many Catholics choose to attack their own historian for daring to admit to certain details of history.

In his own preface he says that if he is guilty of anything - it is in not admitting to enough non-flattering details to fit the actual history of the church.

"In spite of all my efforts I realize the book has its share of shortcomings and omissions which are perhaps inevitable in a book of this scope. Some critics, for instance, have noted, with a certain amount of justice perhaps, a tendency to glide over the negative and dark aspects of the Church's history... I can only say that after writing this book I am more aware than ever of how difficult it is to produce a balanced account of the complex concatenation of events, ideas, and personalities that constitute historical reality" ibid. p.IX


==================

In Bokenkotter's book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" we find this candid remark concerning the inquisition in the "Historical Catholic Church" - p117



How popular did this free-handed style of torture become among the spiritually elite?

 

[BobRyan]

High level catholic sources quoted in the public press -

Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium

By CANDICE HUGHES

.c The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history.

The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins.

For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake for heresy and other crimes.

``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference.

About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.

AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST

============================================================

Debunking the claim that civil authorities being to blame for what happened under the iron fisted rule of the RCC

Catholic Church says must own up for Inquisition

By Alessandra Galloni

VATICAN CITY, Oct 29 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said it had to take responsibility for one of the darkest eras in Roman Catholic church history and not lay blame for the Inquisition on civil prosecutors.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, head of the Vatican's main committee for the year 2000, opened a three-day symposium on the Inquisition saying it was time to re-examine the work of the special court the church set up in 1233 to curb heresy.

Etchegaray said some scholars claimed there were several inquisitions: one in Rome, which worked directly under the Holy See's control, and others in Spain and in Portugal which were often aided by the local civil courts.

``We cannot ignore the fact that this (attempt to distinguish between inquisitions) has allowed some to make apologetic arguments and lay responsibility for what Iberian tribunals did onto civil authorities,'' he said.

``The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese crowns...had powers of intervention...on inquisitory tribunals does not change the ecclesiastical character of the institution,'' he said.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition to help curb heresy, but church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison and even torture heretics.

One of the Inquisition's best known victims was the astronomer Galileo, condemned for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.

The Inquisition reached its height in the 16th century to counter the Reformation. The department later became the Holy Office and its successor now is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which controls the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

Some of the conclusions of the international symposium, which ends on Saturday, could be included in a major document in which the church is expected to ask forgiveness for its past errors as part of celebrations for the year 2000.

The church ``cannot pass into the new millennium without urging its sons to purify themselves, through penitence, of its errors, its infidelities and its incoherences...,'' Father Georges Cottier, a top Vatican theologian and head of the theological commission for the year 2000, told the symposium.

Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files.

The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist.


Pope John Paul has said in several documents and speeches that the Church needs to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, which was responsible for the forced conversion of Jews as well as the torture and killing of heretics[/b].

While there may have been mitigating historical factors for the behaviour of some Catholics, the Pope has said this did not prevent the church from expressing regret for the wrongs of its members in some periods of history.

He initiated the procedure that led to the rehabilitation of Galileo, completed in 1992.

19:01 10-29-98

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sorry gents, but I have to go to town and take care of business. Will respond later.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Dr. Walter,

I am glad you have stuck around for this. It is quite informing, and the discourse is quite revealing as to the blind bias that the papist and its sympathizers show.

Thinkingstuff,

You reason that the great weight of historians hold that the papacy is Christianity. Anyone who has ears knows that the view of the world in general is that Catholicism is Christianity. Dr. Walter is showing by history and education how Catholicism cannot be a true Church at all.

My take is more simple and much less academic. I was teaching my children the Scriptures on one occasion and we read:

2 Thess 2
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


It struck me that a world that would believe a lie is no indication of truth, but rather of God sending upon them a strong delusion to believe the lie. And this very passage is a prophecy of that coming Antichrist, which is come, and the world indeed has bought the lie as God foretold they would.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dr. Walter,

I am glad you have stuck around for this. It is quite informing, and the discourse is quite revealing as to the blind bias that the papist and its sympathizers show.

Thinkingstuff,

You reason that the great weight of historians hold that the papacy is Christianity. Anyone who has ears knows that the view of the world in general is that Catholicism is Christianity. Dr. Walter is showing by history and education how Catholicism cannot be a true Church at all.

My take is more simple and much less academic. I was teaching my children the Scriptures on one occasion and we read:

2 Thess 2
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


It struck me that a world that would believe a lie is no indication of truth, but rather of God sending upon them a strong delusion to believe the lie. And this very passage is a prophecy of that coming Antichrist, which is come, and the world indeed has bought the lie as God foretold they would.

The passage you quote is a moral passage not a secret passage of distrusting Rome. In other words the world likes to live in iniquity and will decieve themselves. For this I lift up the example of homosexual christians who believe its ok to be homosexual (live that lifestyle) and claim the faith. This is what this passage applies to. Second I reason that the great weight of historians show that the early church emerged into the ancient catholic church which futher evolved into the reformed churches to the churches of today. The classical churches have their problems but at one time they conveyed the Holy Spirit and a few still in those churches may yet receive the Holy Spirit.
I also site archeological evidence to discard the landmarkist view.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The passage you quote is a moral passage not a secret passage of distrusting Rome. In other words the world likes to live in iniquity and will decieve themselves. For this I lift up the example of homosexual christians who believe its ok to be homosexual (live that lifestyle) and claim the faith. This is what this passage applies to. Second I reason that the great weight of historians show that the early church emerged into the ancient catholic church which futher evolved into the reformed churches to the churches of today. The classical churches have their problems but at one time they conveyed the Holy Spirit and a few still in those churches may yet receive the Holy Spirit.
I also site archeological evidence to discard the landmarkist view.

I didn't expect you to accept the Reformed understanding of the passage. I do. And I believe it accuratley prophesied of the papacy, which is the Man of Sin, spoken of in this passage. And that which retrainded was the Roman Empire, until it was taken out of the way.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I didn't expect you to accept the Reformed understanding of the passage. I do. And I believe it accuratley prophesied of the papacy, which is the Man of Sin, spoken of in this passage. And that which retrainded was the Roman Empire, until it was taken out of the way.

this passage

man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

refers to the emperor Caligula who did exactly that. It may refer to a future anti Christ. But its unlikely its the pope. What ever happened to the Pope being the false prophet? He can't be both the False prophet and the Anti christ. But the rest of the chapter is about the condition of men under this rule. Which is the moral discussion.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

this passage refers to the emperor Caligula who did exactly that. It may refer to a future anti Christ. But its unlikely its the pope. What ever happened to the Pope being the false prophet? He can't be both the False prophet and the Anti christ. But the rest of the chapter is about the condition of men under this rule. Which is the moral discussion.

I disagree. And am certianly not alone in my view on this, not only among good Christian men who were bible-believers, but even among those who lived at the time of the Roman Empire before it fell. Those who have looked back believed this, and even those who looked forward.

The papacy perfectly fulfills this prophecy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I disagree. And am certianly not alone in my view on this, not only among good Christian men who were bible-believers, but even among those who lived at the time of the Roman Empire before it fell. Those who have looked back believed this, and even those who looked forward.

The papacy perfectly fulfills this prophecy.

Ok we can agree to disagree though I'm right and your not. Did you see the documentary waiting for armeggeddon?

 

[BillySunday1935]

I disagree. And am certianly not alone in my view on this, not only among good Christian men who were bible-believers, but even among those who lived at the time of the Roman Empire before it fell. Those who have looked back believed this, and even those who looked forward.

The papacy perfectly fulfills this prophecy.

2 Peter 1:20-21

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Peace!

 

[DHK]

this passage refers to the emperor Caligula who did exactly that. It may refer to a future anti Christ. But its unlikely its the pope. What ever happened to the Pope being the false prophet? He can't be both the False prophet and the Anti christ. But the rest of the chapter is about the condition of men under this rule. Which is the moral discussion.

He will exalt himself, not hasn't. The passage speaks of a future event that still hasn't taken place yet.
You went as far as verse four. What does the rest of the context say:

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

--Has the Wicked (one) been revealed yet (the anti-christ)?
After him shall all the world follow for he comes with all power and signs and lying wonders.
All will not receive the love of the truth that they might be damned.
Therefore God shall send them a strong delusion.
They all will believe a lie--that this man is the anti-christ.
ALL might be damned

Did this happen? No, there are many coming to Christ today. The Anti-christ has not been revealed, not today and not in past history.

As for your reference to other historical sources, one of the sources that you mentioned was "Christianity Today," a widely respected evangelical magazine. Does it have bias? The magazine is new evangelical. It compromises the truth.

I ordered a copy of it (back-ordered) that dealt specifically with the historic evangelism of Asia, especially India. It considers the RCC as evangelical, and as a major player in the spread of the gospel in India. That is about as far from the truth as one can get. "Christianity Today" compromises the truth. It is not an unbiased magazine. It also takes a biased view of history, and when looking at the history of Christianity includes all of "Christendom" not just evangelicalism per se, or those that would spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thus unbiased sources are difficult to come by, even today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He will exalt himself, not hasn't. The passage speaks of a future event that still hasn't taken place yet.
You went as far as verse four. What does the rest of the context say:

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

--Has the Wicked (one) been revealed yet (the anti-christ)?
After him shall all the world follow for he comes with all power and signs and lying wonders.
All will not receive the love of the truth that they might be damned.
Therefore God shall send them a strong delusion.
They all will believe a lie--that this man is the anti-christ.
ALL might be damned

Did this happen? No, there are many coming to Christ today. The Anti-christ has not been revealed, not today and not in past history.

As for your reference to other historical sources, one of the sources that you mentioned was "Christianity Today," a widely respected evangelical magazine. Does it have bias? The magazine is new evangelical. It compromises the truth.

I ordered a copy of it (back-ordered) that dealt specifically with the historic evangelism of Asia, especially India. It considers the RCC as evangelical, and as a major player in the spread of the gospel in India. That is about as far from the truth as one can get. "Christianity Today" compromises the truth. It is not an unbiased magazine. It also takes a biased view of history, and when looking at the history of Christianity includes all of "Christendom" not just evangelicalism per se, or those that would spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thus unbiased sources are difficult to come by, even today.

Prophesy often has a current meaning and a future meaning. Its like this throughout scripture. So depending on when 2 Thes was writen it could be speaking of both caligula and a like minded future anti christ but I already said that. And I agree the anti christ isn't revealed yet. I'm suggesting its not the pope. The pope can't both be the false prophet and anti-christ. One or the other. If you hold to that view.
And of course a well accepted evangelical magazine "compromises the truth" to a person who basis truth on what they want rather than what is. Also because its new it has to be bad. Right? And if you say all of christiandom you are including Catholicism admittadly in your above statement. And all your sources are "biased" rather than unbiased as you lead us to believe. I would adhere to a secular source as holding an unbiased position between baptist and Catholic with regard to history. However, you think secular sources are Catholic which I find funny since they dislike that church as much as you.

 

[DHK]

And of course a well accepted evangelical magazine "compromises the truth" to a person who basis truth on what they want rather than what is.

I look at the magazine objectively. Is it telling the truth about the history of India? "St Francis Xavier" in the 1540's went to Goa and converted hundreds, if not thousands, of the Goans by peril of the sword. The battle cry of the evangelism of the RCC at that time in India was "Be baptized or die!" That is not Christianity! It is barbarianism. It in itself is more barbaric and pagan than the paganism of the existing Goans. And yet Xavier was made a "saint" for the number of "conversions" he made at Goa. Astounding! Do you still consider it an objective source of truth?

Also because its new it has to be bad. Right? And if you say all of christiandom you are including Catholicism admittadly in your above statement.

Not so. I have many current sources of history and I am updating my library all the time. Thus I purchased this magazine. I will separate the good from the bad. I read with a critical mind. Catholicism is not and never was a Christian religion.
When the world speaks of "Chrisendom" they speak of all that falls under that great umbrella that calls themselves Christian whether they be J.W.'s, Mormons, or Catholics.

And all your sources are "biased" rather than unbiased as you lead us to believe. I would adhere to a secular source as holding an unbiased position between baptist and Catholic with regard to history. However, you think secular sources are Catholic which I find funny since they dislike that church as much as you.

When I pick up an Encyclopedia and look up an article on the Albigenses, what do you think I will find? I no doubt will find an article heavily influenced by Catholic-revisionism. After all, as Dr. Walter has already pointed out to you, not only were the Albigeneses wiped out, but their literature as well, thus any remaining documents about them are difficult to find. What one does find is literature written by their enemies containing accusations of false doctrine attributed to them which are not true. I would rather find the source, as difficult as it may be.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I look at the magazine objectively. Is it telling the truth about the history of India? "St Francis Xavier" in the 1540's went to Goa and converted hundreds, if not thousands, of the Goans by peril of the sword. The battle cry of the evangelism of the RCC at that time in India was "Be baptized or die!" That is not Christianity! It is barbarianism. It in itself is more barbaric and pagan than the paganism of the existing Goans. And yet Xavier was made a "saint" for the number of "conversions" he made at Goa. Astounding! Do you still consider it an objective source of truth?.

If thats what actually happened. Yes I accept it as unbiased. And I agree forcing belief isn't Christianity and Francis Xavier should not have been given and honor. However in 1540's I would say the reformation needed to happen and did happen. If your going to report you might as well report on both bad and good. That is unbaised. However, I looked at his history a bit and he didn't do any killing himself. he requested an inquisition. What he did do was destroy lots of idols.

Not so. I have many current sources of history and I am updating my library all the time. Thus I purchased this magazine. I will separate the good from the bad. I read with a critical mind. Catholicism is not and never was a Christian religion.

I entirely disagree with you and I base it on historical accounts.

When the world speaks of "Chrisendom" they speak of all that falls under that great umbrella that calls themselves Christian whether they be J.W.'s, Mormons, or Catholics.

They might indeed but they are unbiased towards any particular denomination.

When I pick up an Encyclopedia and look up an article on the Albigenses, what do you think I will find? I no doubt will find an article heavily influenced by Catholic-revisionism. After all, as Dr. Walter has already pointed out to you, not only were the Albigeneses wiped out, but their literature as well, thus any remaining documents about them are difficult to find. What one does find is literature written by their enemies containing accusations of false doctrine attributed to them which are not true. I would rather find the source, as difficult as it may be

Or maybe they were as they were discribed. However I agree I would rather find the source.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Ok we can agree to disagree though I'm right and your not. Did you see the documentary waiting for armeggeddon?

hahahaha...that reminds me of a picture I saw, like the busienss ones, with the word "Compromise" on it, and the caption "Let's agree to respect each other's views, no matter how wrong yours might be."


HAHAHA

I think I did see that documentary. Somethign I watched off of Netflix dealt mostly with futurists tho.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

2 Peter 1:20-21

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Peace!

Heb 10

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

[Thinkingstuff]

hahahaha...that reminds me of a picture I saw, like the busienss ones, with the word "Compromise" on it, and the caption "Let's agree to respect each other's views, no matter how wrong yours might be."


HAHAHA

I think I did see that documentary. Somethign I watched off of Netflix dealt mostly with futurists tho.

I like that quote. I think I'll use :laugh:

I thought that was an interesting look at the raputist Point of view. the ones that seemed scarry were those that wanted to make war on the Muslims. How is that any different from the crusades? Though I laughed at the rabbi who believed that Jesus wouldn't make it back a second time. Boy is he going to be disappointed!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Heb 10

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Amen!

Peace.

 

[DHK]

If thats what actually happened. Yes I accept it as unbiased. And I agree forcing belief isn't Christianity and Francis Xavier should not have been given and honor. However in 1540's I would say the reformation needed to happen and did happen. If your going to report you might as well report on both bad and good. That is unbaised. However, I looked at his history a bit and he didn't do any killing himself. he requested an inquisition. What he did do was destroy lots of idols.

You didn't understand me did you.
Do you think that "Christianity Today" would dare report anything that Xavier did? Not a chance. They didn't even mention him. What they talked about was the contribution that the Catholic Church made in evangelization of India, though in very general terms. The Catholic Church did not make any contributions in the evangelization of India. They don't know what the gospel is, as I just demonstrated to you by relating to you the history of "their so-called evangelization of Goa."
"Christianity Today" is not being honest in their portrayal of the RCC in picturing them in such a positive light along with other evangelicals such as Pandita Ramabai and Amy Carmichael.

I entirely disagree with you and I base it on historical accounts.

I said: "I have many current sources of history and I am updating my library all the time. Thus I purchased this magazine.[/quote]
And you disagree with me. Do you call me a liar? What is this supposed to mean?

I also said I read with a critical mind. But you don't believe I have that ability either. You are a sad case.

They might indeed but they are unbiased towards any particular denomination.

And so am I when I use the word "Christendom," except when I clarify it.