Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Eric B]

Good answer, good answer.

Believers did meet "from house to house" early on. Imagine 3,000 people gathering at homes on Sunday. No wonder there were many elders. They had a lot of meetings to preach to or lead Scripture study.

Church buildings as we know them came later.

When the 3000 were converted, IIRC, they were still using the synagogues.
And I believe that was a temporary situation. When that many people got converted, of course, the meetings would be that big. But there is no evidence it stayed that way. They then most likely broke up into small groups in people's homes. Hence, so called "megachurches" and large liturgical bodies alike, (which need so much organization, which requires more money and resources to run) are looking at the wrong things when using this scene in Acts as their model of church fellowship.

When I talk about spiritual kinship, I'm not referring to an institution or denomination. I'm referring to groups of believers who have held to NT doctrines and practices. I believe such groups have existed since NT times. (And apparently so do you).

Those groups were imperfect, of course, just as they are today, and just as they were when Peter, Paul and others were writing to them,correcting, instructing and encouraging them.

Still, it is not right to go picking out just any ol' groups to fill in the "gaps", and solely on the basis that they stood out from the Catholics and were persecuted, and then go on and vehemently deny that they were aberrant against all the historical evidence. Sorry, but not all of those named groups tossed around measure up to NT doctrine, as the groups claiming them even hold. "Groups" can be as small as "two or three" (Matt. 18:20). It does not have to be an organized sect, but that's what people tend to look for.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Hi DHK,

Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

Thanks.

CA

 

[JohnDeereFan]

DHK calls me to prejudice when it come to the Pamphlet known as trail of blood. Is it fact or fiction? I contend its fiction. So let me start analysising it here. While reading it I came across this statement in the introduction:



The latest dating of Paulicians is found in 970 AD. So it is a questionable quote from 1160. Fraudulent possibly? We don't know a lot about this sect but we do know they accepted the gospels but rejected the OT. We also know they made a distinction between God of the Spirit world and the God of the Material world. And we know they rejected the incarnation. Not very baptist huh?

Also I found this quote in the introduction:



Well, the title of the quote is misleading because its bad latin. I have been informed that Catholic priest must know latin and definately a Cardnal would know some latin especially in the middleages and the document listing all of his works would be better titled Opera Omnia. So this quote is also fraudulent. Though this cardnal did exist he was probably misquoted. Or worse words were put in his mouth.

I haven't even gotten to the body of work yet and am working my way through the introduction what other gems will I find?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's outright fiction, but it's not good history.

The sad part is that so many of the things he talks about in ToB are based on truth, but he presents them in such an inaccurate way.

 

[Matt Black]

Can you be more specific?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Can you be more specific?

Honestly? No. I'm not trying to be glib or stiff-arm you, it's just been so long since I've read it.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK,

Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

Thanks.

CA

There is plenty of history around to tell you of the Albigenses and groups similar to them. But you won't accept it.
I believe you hold to a double standard, a hypocritical one. Let me demonstrate:

Who discovered America?
Was it Columbus, who "in 1492 Columbus sailed the blue"?
Or was it long before that?
Was it some Norwegians and possibly Icelanders?
Possibly men like Eric the Red?
There is good evidence that these Norwegians discovered America long before Columbus ever reached North America.
However, do you have any first hand evidence for it. Can you provide it? No. You just take the word of a school text-book that it was so. You have no first hand evidence whatsoever, and probably couldn't find any if you tried. You have a double standard. You don't demand first hand evidence in one area, but you do in another area of history. That is hypocrisy.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

There is plenty of history around to tell you of the Albigenses and groups similar to them.

The Orchard quote you previously cited is not a primary source. (And, regardless, the quote did not reference the Albigenses.)

But you won't accept it.

You have yet to provide any primary sources for me to accept, or reject. Historians, whether reporting on the Ambigenses or America, refer to primary source documents. (Sidebar. I don't recall participating in any discussion about the discovery of America.)

Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

Thank you.

CA

 

[DHK]

The Orchard quote you previously cited is not a primary source. (And, regardless, the quote did not reference the Albigenses.)



You have yet to provide any primary sources for me to accept, or reject. Historians, whether reporting on the Ambigenses or America, refer to primary source documents. (Sidebar. I don't recall participating in any discussion about the discovery of America.)

Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

Thank you.

CA

Here is a quote from J.T. Christian's "A History of the Baptists."

CHAPTER V
THE ALBIGENSIAN, THE PETROBRUSIAN, THE HENRICIAN,
THE ARNOLDIST AND THE PERENGARIAN CHURCHES

IT has already been indicated that the Paulicians came from Armenia, by the way of Thrace, settled in France and Italy, and traveled through, and made disciples in, nearly all of the countries of Europe. The descent of the Albigenses has been traced by some writers from the Paulicians (Encyclopedia Britannica, I. 454. 9th edition). Recent writers hold that the Albigenses had been in the valleys of France from the earliest ages of Christianity. Prof. Bury says that "it lingered on in Southern France," and was not a "mere Bogomilism, but an ancient local survival." Mr. Conybeare thinks that it lived on from the early times in the Balkan Peninsula, "where it was probably the basis of Bogomilism" (Bury, Ed. Gibbon, History of Rome, VI. 563).

They spread rapidly through Southern France and the little city of Albi, in the district of Albigeois, became the center of the party. From this city they were called Albigenses. In Italy the Albigenses were known by various names, like the Paulicians, such as "Good Men," and others. It is difficult to determine the origin of all of the names; but some of them came from the fact that they were regarded as vulgar, illiterate and low bred; while other names were given from the purity and wholesomeness of their lives. It is remarkable that the inquisitorial examinations of the Albigenses did not tax them with immoralities, but they were condemned for speculations, or rather for virtuous rules of action, which the Roman Catholics accounted heresy. They said a Christian church should consist of good people; a church had no power to frame any constitutions; it was not right to take oaths; it was not lawful to kill mankind; a man ought not to be delivered up to the officers of justice to be converted; the benefits of society belong alike to all members of it; faith without works could not save a man; the church ought not to persecute any, even the wicked; the law of Moses was no rule for Christians; there was no need of priests, especially of wicked ones; the sacraments, and orders, and ceremonies of the church of Rome were futile, expensive, oppressive, and wicked. They baptized by immersion and rejected infant baptism (Jones, The History of the Christian Church, I. 287). They were decidedly anti-clerical.

Most of their beliefs were not unlike most Baptists today.

The same information can be gleaned from almost any Baptist History text.

Armitage's "A History of the Baptists" in two volumes, is one of the better references. There are many books on Baptist History. These resources are much better than the discredited Catholic sources that many others often run to.



The reference to the discovery of America was an example of how a double standard is adhered to. In other areas of history you won't demand a "primary source." But you do here. There are many things we believe that we have no primary source available to us. The primary sources are often locked up in museums, available only to a very few. So why are you so demanding here?

 

[Matt Black]

All of the above are secondary sources. CA asked for primary sources, and gave a very helpful link to a definition of the latter; did you not read it?

So, the question remains: please cite the primary sources in support of your contention that the Albigenses-Cathars were evangelical Christians, without setting off on a tangential trek as to which European may nor may not have discovered America.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Paulicans, Bogomils, Albergensians all held to a dual divinity a "god" of the spirit world and an evil "god" of the material world. Albergensians theological decent from the Cathars who believed that this world was hell and that the "god" of the tanakh or the OT was evil. Definately not baptist. What similarities there are is a rejection of the Sacraments, the Papacy, and veneration of Mary. These are some sources:
Moore's The Origins of European Dissent, Un traite neo-manicheen du XIIIe siecle: Le Liber de duobus principiis, suivi d'un fragment de rituel Cathare
Massacre at Montsegur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade, Zoe Oldenbourg
Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity", p251
http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/congress/

 

[DHK]

The Paulicans, Bogomils, Albergensians all held to a dual divinity a "god" of the spirit world and an evil "god" of the material world. Albergensians theological decent from the Cathars who believed that this world was hell and that the "god" of the tanakh or the OT was evil. Definately not baptist. What similarities there are is a rejection of the Sacraments, the Papacy, and veneration of Mary. These are some sources:
Moore's The Origins of European Dissent, Un traite neo-manicheen du XIIIe siecle: Le Liber de duobus principiis, suivi d'un fragment de rituel Cathare
Massacre at Montsegur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade, Zoe Oldenbourg
Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity", p251
http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/congress/

You hold a double standard just like others do. You want me to produce a primary source (or so it seems). That is what Matt and CA are demanding, but you can't produce one yourself. Your source comes from May 2009, and the information in it is not all correct. Why should I believe your information over the information I have already posted?

 

[DHK]

All of the above are secondary sources. CA asked for primary sources, and gave a very helpful link to a definition of the latter; did you not read it?

So, the question remains: please cite the primary sources in support of your contention that the Albigenses-Cathars were evangelical Christians, without setting off on a tangential trek as to which European may nor may not have discovered America.

Then you provide primary sources for those groups of believers that are hidden in antiquity.

 

[Zenas]

Your source comes from May 2009, and the information in it is not all correct. Why should I believe your information over the information I have already posted?

If his source comes from May 2009, this guy is really good. I would tend to believe it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You hold a double standard just like others do. You want me to produce a primary source (or so it seems). That is what Matt and CA are demanding, but you can't produce one yourself. Your source comes from May 2009, and the information in it is not all correct. Why should I believe your information over the information I have already posted?

Because I'm cooler than you are. And I have a pompadore so I can pretend to be like Elvis if I wanted. I don't use words like double standard in the same sentence. A lot of reasons. Why shouldn't you?

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Then you provide primary sources for those groups of believers that are hidden in antiquity.

DHK,

As requested.

At one time the primary sources may have not been readily available, or "hidden in antiquity;" however, that is not true today:

An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies

A Description of Cathars and Waldenses by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay

The Catharist Rituals

Please cite your primary sources. Those that support your belief that the Albigenses were Bible believing Christians.

Thank you.

CA

 

[DHK]

DHK,

As requested.

At one time the primary sources may have not been readily available, or "hidden in antiquity;" however, that is not true today:

An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies

A Description of Cathars and Waldenses by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay

The Catharist Rituals

Please cite your primary sources. Those that support your belief that the Albigenses were Bible believing Christians.

Thank you.

CA

Those are not primary sources IMO. They are no better than J.T. Christian's, "A History of the Baptists," not Armitage's "Baptist History." The books you recommend simply quote from ancient sources as do Armitage and Christian. There is no difference. If you want to pick up a copy of Christian's book, and follow all the documentation you will find your primary sources. Not everything is found on the internet. I have both Armitage and Christian in my library and I am content with that. I also have some other Baptist History books attesting to the same information that I have previously written.

FYI, I looked in the World Book Encyclopedia. The information there called them heretics. At the end of the article it referred one to Catholic sources. Obviously the article was biased from the beginning.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

As requested.

At one time the primary sources may have not been readily available, or "hidden in antiquity;" however, that is not true today:

An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies
CA

An Exposure of the heresies of the Catholic Church.
Read it here:

http://www.lifelineprinting.com/hislop_alexander_two_babylons.htm?gclid=CLKQzuaKi5oCFRFWagod1xZuLA

I am sure that first hand sources were used.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Those are not primary sources IMO. They are no better than J.T. Christian's, "A History of the Baptists," not Armitage's "Baptist History." ... The books you recommend simply quote from ancient sources as do Armitage and Christian...

Before we look at the JT Christian and Armitage references to the Albigensians it would be helpful for me to know what you mean by the phrase "primary sources."

What is your definition of primary sources?

Thanks.

Greg

 

[DHK]

Before we look at the JT Christian and Armitage references to the Albigensians it would be helpful for me to know what you mean by the phrase "primary sources."

What is your definition of primary sources?

Thanks.

Greg

Let's take an example. Near the beginning of chapter five of his book, look at this quote:

They baptized by immersion and rejected infant baptism (Jones, The History of the Christian Church, I. 287). They were decidedly anti-clerical.

"Here then," says Dr. Allix, "we have found a body of men in Italy, before the year one thousand and twenty-six, five hundred years before the Reformation, who believed contrary to the opinions of the Church of Rome, and who highly condemned their errors." Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, had complained of such a people eighty years before, and so had others before him, and there is the highest reason to believe they had always existed in Italy (Ibid, I. 288). The Cathari themselves boasted of their remote antiquity (Bonacursus, Vitae haereticorum... Cathorum, ap. D’Archery, Scriptorum Spicilegiam, I. 208).

In tracing the history and doctrines of the Albigenses it must never be forgotten that on account of persecution they scarcely left a trace of their writings, confessional, apologetical, or polemical; and the representations which Roman Catholic writers, their avowed enemies, have given of them, are highly exaggerated. The words of a historian who is not in accord with, their principles may here be used. He says:

It is evident, however, that they formed a branch of that broad stream of sectarianism and heresy which rose far away in Asia from the contact between Christianity and the Oriental religions, and which, by crossing the Balkan Peninsula, reached Western Europe. The first overflow from this source were the Manichaeans, the next the Paulicians, the next the Cathari, who in the tenth and eleventh centuries were very strong in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Of the Cathari, the Bogomils, Patoreni, Albigenses, etc. . . . were only individual developments (C. Schmidt, Schaff-Hersog, I. 47).

I am not sure who Jones is; a Baptist historian I presume.
However, it cannot be denied that the second source that I bolded is a primary source, a source that quotes from the actual writings of the Albigenses (Cathari) themselves. How close to the original source can one get.
What can one say about Schaff-Herzog, except that he has a great reputation as being a reliable historian, although this would not be a "primary source."


Is this what you are looking for?
Since Schaff-Herzog's works are still available one could inevtitably go to his works and find out where he got the information from. I am sure it can be traced if one wants to take the time and trouble to do that. But Christian gives enough quotes that are close enough to the approximate date of the Albigenses or are straight from the "mouth" of the Albigeneses to be considered primary.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

DHK,

RE The Cathari themselves boasted of their remote antiquity (Bonacursus, Vitae haereticorum... Cathorum, ap. D’Archery, Scriptorum Spicilegiam, I. 208).

I wonder about your characterization of this quote as an example of a primary source. The author (Christian, or Armitage?) does not quote "from the actual writings of the Albigenses (Cathari) themselves." He summarizes what he believes Bonacursus wrote in "Vitae haereticorum...," but does not allow Bonacursus to speak for himself.

The author referenced a primary source; however, he presented it as a secondary source. Rather than quoting "Vitae haereticorum..." at length and letting the reader decide the meaning of the text; the author offered no quote from Bonacursus, and gave only his own analysis and interpretation.

How to Distinguish Between Primary and Secondary Sources

Please clarify the basis upon which you consider the above a primary source.

Thank you.

CA

(Sidebar. In Bonacursus, "Vitae haereticorum..." I don't see any mention of the Cathari themselves boasting of their remote antiquity.)