Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[DHK]

TS:
How would you connect a "simple follower of Paul of Christ and of Paul," to a Manichean? It seems you don't know how to connect the dots.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS:
How would you connect a "simple follower of Paul of Christ and of Paul," to a Manichean? It seems you don't know how to connect the dots.

Do you know how to read contextually?

 

[DHK]

Do you know how to read contextually?

Yes, but it seems like you don't. The article clearly says that they objected to the heresy of being called Manicheans. But you will not even take the word of the article for what it says. This is absurd.

 

[chadman]

Note there is no record of their succession and they flourished around 600 AD. So how does the author connect the dots of the Paulicans from 600 AD to Christ?

I have no idea how to connect those dots. The intellectual part of me believes there are no dots to connect. I think Baptist teaching is a fairly modern interpretation personally. Yes, yes, yes...I know there are certain 'aspects' of what we believe that are part of schismatic groups, but a lot of what we believe is part of the Roman apostolic church as well. That doesn't really prove it to me.

Anybody know how we prove this? (the 600 yr gap from AD 70 to the Paulicans)

 

[DHK]

Here is a much more lengthy quote concerning the Paulicians from another source:

PAULICIANS
While the Christian world, as it has been the fashion to call it, was thus sunk into an awful state of superstition -- at a moment when "darkness seemed to cover the earth, and gross darkness the people" -- it is pleasing to contemplate a ray of celestial light darting across the gloom. About the year 660, a new sect arose in the east, under the name of PAULICIANS, which is justly entitled to our attention. [It is much to be regretted that of this class of Christians, all our information is derived through the medium of their enemies. The two original sources of intelligence concerning them are Photius, b. 1. Contra Manichaeos; and Siculus Hist. Manicheor. and from them Mosheim and Gibbon have deduced their account of the Paulicians. The latter writer has entered far more fully into the subject than the former, and, what is singular enough, he has displayed more candor! I have collected from these two modern authors the concise account given as follows, and have aimed at impartiality.]
In Mananalis, an obscure town in the vicinity of Somosata, a person of the name of CONSTANTINE entertained at his house a deacon, who, having been a prisoner among the Mahometans, was returning from Syria, whither he had been carried away captive. From this passing stranger, Constantine received the precious gift of the New Testament in its original language, which, even at this early period, was so concealed from the vulgar, that Peter Siculus, to whom we owe most of our information on the history of the Paulicians, tells us, the first scruples of a Catholic, when he was advised to read the Bible, was, "it is not lawful for us profane persons to read those sacred writings, but for the priests only." Indeed, the gross ignorance which pervaded Europe at that time, rendered the generality of the people incapable of reading that or any other book; but even those of the laity who could read, were dissuaded by their religious guides from meddling with the Bible. Constantine, however, made the best use of the deacon’s present -- he studied his New Testament with unwearied assiduity -- and more particularly the writings of the apostle Paul, from which he at length endeavored to deduce a system of doctrine and worship. "He investigated the creed of primitive Christianity," says Gibbon, "and whatever might be the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit of the enquiry." [Decline and Fall, vol. 10, ch. 54.] The knowledge to which Constantine himself was, under the Divine blessing, enabled to attain, he gladly communicated to others around him, and a Christian church was collected. In a little time several individuals arose among them qualified for the work of the ministry; and several other churches were collected throughout Armenia and Cappadocia. It appears from the whole of their history to have been a leading object with Constantine and his brethren to restore, as far as possible, the profession of Christianity to all its primitive simplicity.



Their public appearance soon attracted the notice of the Catholic party, who immediately branded them with the opprobrious appellation of Manichaeans;


but "they sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichaean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on them." [Gibbon, Ubi supra.]



There is reason, therefore, to think, that they voluntarily adopted the name of Paulicians, and that they derived it from the name of the great apostle of the Gentiles. Constantine now assumed or received the name of Sylvanus, and others of his fellow laborers were called Titus, Timothy, Tichicus, etc. and as the churches arose and were formed in different places, they were named after those apostolic churches to which Paul originally addressed his inspired writings, without any regard to the name of the city or town in which they assembled for worship.

Notice that the same statement is made verbatim. The bolding of that particular statement and its italicization is mine.



This quote comes from:

THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, from the birth of Christ to the 18th Century: including the very interesting account of the Waldenses and Albigenses
By William Jones​

 

[DHK]

I have no idea how to connect those dots. The intellectual part of me believes there are no dots to connect. I think Baptist teaching is a fairly modern interpretation personally. Yes, yes, yes...I know there are certain 'aspects' of what we believe that are part of schismatic groups, but a lot of what we believe is part of the Roman apostolic church as well. That doesn't really prove it to me.

Anybody know how we prove this? (the 600 yr gap from AD 70 to the Paulicans)

The dots are connected through the various groups that preceded them that have already been mentioned, such as the Waldenses. The basic theme here is that there have been groups of believers, though called by different names, having the same basic beliefs that Baptists hold today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, but it seems like you don't. The article clearly says that they objected to the heresy of being called Manicheans. But you will not even take the word of the article for what it says. This is absurd.

Again I will show you the quote

impressed that invidious name on the simple followers of Paul and Christ.

It clearly indicates that the Author makes a clear connection of the Paulicans and Jesus. The problem is that he has no evidence to conntect the dots back to Christ he can show no and makes an illogical leap of Paulicans related to Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The dots are connected through the various groups that preceded them that have already been mentioned, such as the Waldenses. The basic theme here is that there have been groups of believers, though called by different names, having the same basic beliefs that Baptists hold today.

But are significantly different from each other not to be related saved by a joint sectarian identification. Note some hold to the sacraments and have a very catholic view of that. The correlation fails.

 

[chadman]

The dots are connected through the various groups that preceded them that have already been mentioned, such as the Waldenses. The basic theme here is that there have been groups of believers, though called by different names, having the same basic beliefs that Baptists hold today.

This is interesting - maybe needs another thread. But since we are hijacking this one a bit, I am curious.

You seem to have invested a lot of time in this area. What was the first group or two and their time periods, that were the first 'Baptist' type groups that held this aposolitc teaching or evangelical truth?

Showing up 660 years after the fact is akin to Muslim's showing up with new truth about the same time.

 

[chadman]

But are significantly different from each other not to be related saved by a joint sectarian identification. Note some hold to the sacraments and have a very catholic view of that. The correlation fails.

Another thing that bothers me is that the Paulican's 'improved' or good version of Baptist history is prefaced by the author's statement that all of the information we have on the Paulicans is derived from their enemies. If you can't trust the enemy version - how can we trust ANYTHING about it if it isn't trustworthy to begin with?!!! See the flawed premise?

TS - wasn't it you who said it's faulty to start off from a position of error? Then how have these guys derived a Baptist-friendly version of Paulican's using on the seemingly flawed enemies version of events as source documents?

I just don't get it.

 

[DHK]

TS - wasn't it you who said it's faulty to start off from a position of error? Then how have these guys derived a Baptist-friendly version of Paulican's using on the seemingly flawed enemies version of events as source documents?

I just don't get it.

TS would rather rely on Catholic Revisionism, a distorted view of history smeared over by the RCC, rather than source material right from the Paulicians themselves. Dr. Walters gave you their source, "The Key of Truth." Why wasn't it accepted? Both Jones and Orchards reference Gibbons and other historians. But that is not acceptable either. It seems that looking at history only at the rose-colored eyes of the Roman Catholic Church is acceptable in TS's eyes.

Look at it this way. When I go to a Muslim land I am accused of believing in three gods for the Muslims do not believe in the Trinity. If the Lord doesn't come and Islam continues to grow as the fastest growing religion in the world, then in the next thousand years history may be re-written from a Muslim point of view. In that point of view it will unjustly accuse of Christianity of believing in three gods. It will do that simply because it does not accept the trinity. It will look at Christianity through their eyes. It will paint the picture from their point of view and unjustly accuse of us many things that we never did.

That is what happened long ago. The RCC has done the same thing. Even now they have indoctrinated TS of believing that the "RCC never killed anyone." What an absurd statement.

 

[chadman]

TS would rather rely on Catholic Revisionism, a distorted view of history smeared over by the RCC, rather than source material right from the Paulicians themselves.

I find it very hard to believe we are not ALL operating as history revisionists as best fits our positions. Seriously.

Dr. Walters gave you their source, "The Key of Truth." Why wasn't it accepted? Both Jones and Orchards reference Gibbons and other historians.

Right - this is where I am confused then. If the source is The key of truth writtings, Dr. Walter said they show up around the eleventh century - 500 yrs after the first Paulicans. And they had some strange beliefs, in fact quite heretical in my mind per Dr. Walters quote below:

Those in the area where the "key of truth" originated did teach that idea.
(the idea that Christ was an angel and created) - my original question.

They don't sound like Baptists to me. I am a Baptist, and they do not fit the bill.

That is what happened long ago. The RCC has done the same thing. Even now they have indoctrinated TS of believing that the "RCC never killed anyone." What an absurd statement.

We cannot invent history based on taking the opposite view of empirical history - tainted or not. I don't trust that method.

Oh, I'll bet TS believes that Catholics, Reformers, and Protestants have killed in the name of God. We all have blood on our historical hands.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Another thing that bothers me is that the Paulican's 'improved' or good version of Baptist history is prefaced by the author's statement that all of the information we have on the Paulicans is derived from their enemies. If you can't trust the enemy version - how can we trust ANYTHING about it if it isn't trustworthy to begin with?!!! See the flawed premise?

TS - wasn't it you who said it's faulty to start off from a position of error? Then how have these guys derived a Baptist-friendly version of Paulican's using on the seemingly flawed enemies version of events as source documents?

I just don't get it.

Nor will you, if you remain objective. Most of what these people do is argue that all identifiers have been identified by their enemies which may not have placed them in a fair light. Thus "it could be" or is "possible" that these were paedo-baptist. Very poor reasoning if you ask me. It begins with a premise that isn't substantiate historically or by ancient documents. The first believers were baptist. Thus this being the case it follows that they have been present through out history and persecuted by the catholics and were falsely identified in the groups Catholics mentioned in their histories.
The fact is there are no documents proving this hypothesis and no finds purporting this. So their argument is held together that there is nothing about them in history. So they can pick sectarian groups willi nilli and say ah they were baptist because they seperated from the Catholic Church, which would make baptist protestant but historically we know this is not the case. They pick the montanist as paedao baptist thought they are more closely related to pentecostals had liturgy and would scoff at soul liberty. and on and on it goes.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Oh, I'll bet TS believes that Catholics, Reformers, and Protestants have killed in the name of God. We all have blood on our historical hands.

Actually, Chadman, you are right I believe each of these denominations have blood on their respective hands.

Though DHK takes my point that it was the civil authorities that actually did the killings during the inquisition under the authority of their respective Kings. I didn not render the catholics entirely blameles since it was they who accused the people put to death. For instance let me give you a good example. The Catholic Priest of the English put Joan of Arc to death by accusing her to the civil authorities. The english military burned her at the stake. Yet the Catholic Church made her a saint. Is the Church responsible? Yes and no.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is interesting - maybe needs another thread. But since we are hijacking this one a bit, I am curious.

You seem to have invested a lot of time in this area. What was the first group or two and their time periods, that were the first 'Baptist' type groups that held this aposolitc teaching or evangelical truth?

Showing up 660 years after the fact is akin to Muslim's showing up with new truth about the same time.

You bring up a good point Chadman. If muslims disapeared in the... say eighth century would DHK and DR. Walters claim they were early baptist?

 

[Tom Butler]

Oh, I'll bet TS believes that Catholics, Reformers, and Protestants have killed in the name of God. We all have blood on our historical hands.

All, that is, except Baptists.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Right - this is where I am confused then. If the source is The key of truth writtings, Dr. Walter said they show up around the eleventh century - 500 yrs after the first Paulicans. And they had some strange beliefs, in fact quite heretical in my mind per Dr. Walters quote below.

The latter "key of truth" is but one evidence. Roman historians admit that the earlier Paulicians denied they embraced Manicheanism. This is reported by Edward Gibbons and his sources as well as by others including the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on Paulicians where they freely admit the Paulicians denied embracing the tenets of Mancheanism. They were not referring to the eleventh century "key of truth" but to the seventh century Paulicians.They also admit they charged them with this error anyway in spite of their denial.

The Paulicians spread by the thousands across Europe and came under many different local names. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were charged with dualism, anti-sabbaticalism, anti-ministry, anti-ordinances, etc. simply because they reject Rome's interpretation and view of such things. It is Rome's way or the highway (sword).

Only those who have swallowed the revisionist histories of Rome or who are defenders of Rome deny these things. The historical evidence is there to defend the evangelical free church movement.

 

[chadman]

The latter "key of truth" is but one evidence.

I tried to do some more research on this as I find it pretty interesting to say the least. According to most of what I found today, it would appear that The Key of Truth is the one and only true primary source of Paulican teachings in their own words - which they kept secret as long as possible.

Before I get into they keys then, are you saying what I find there will not be representative of earlier Paulicans? Because the person who found it and translated it believes the date it was written:

The date at
which the book was written in its present form cannot be put later
than the ninth century, nor earlier than the seventh.

He seems to bear out what you believe as well:

And now I at last understood who the Paulicians really were.
All who had written about them had been misled by the calumnies
of Photius, Petrus Siculus, and the other Greek writers, who
describe them as Manicheans.

Since this is clearly as some profess the best primary source document - are you saying what I find in there will be representative of Paulican teachings? Or the parts we don't like, well, we attribute those to a 'sect' of the minority of Paulicans?

 

[DHK]

He seems to bear out what you believe as well:
Since this is clearly as some profess the best primary source document - are you saying what I find in there will be representative of Paulican teachings? Or the parts we don't like, well, we attribute those to a 'sect' of the minority of Paulicans?

After all is said and done, and the history books have been written, which sect will be the best representative of the Baptists?

Charismatic Baptists.
Seventh Day Baptists.
SBC
IFB
American Baptist Convention (some have female preachers)

Which one typically will represent Baptist distinctives and beliefs?
Will we then have assigned the others to a sect or a minority of the rest of the "Baptists"?

 

[chadman]

Just trying to determine what Paulicans believed