Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Matt Black]

I dont get it, DHK: first, you reject primary sources because the ones shown to you are Catholic. Now you're not even bothering to look at a Cathar primary source properly, speculating that it might be translated by a Catholic (would it help if I got you a link to the original MS so you could translate it yourself?) and yet it contains clear evidence of gnosticism which blows your 'Cathars were Christians' theory out of the water. It kind of reminds me of Jesus' statement in Luke 16:31 - why can't/won't you see it?

 

[DHK]

I dont get it, DHK: first, you reject primary sources because the ones shown to you are Catholic. Now you're not even bothering to look at a Cathar primary source properly, speculating that it might be translated by a Catholic (would it help if I got you a link to the original MS so you could translate it yourself?) and yet it contains clear evidence of gnosticism which blows your 'Cathars were Christians' theory out of the water. It kind of reminds me of Jesus' statement in Luke 16:31 - why can't/won't you see it?

First of all I didn't reject it outright. My comment is so what? What is the big deal? What is the document trying to prove (according to you)? It does nothing to bolster any Catholic position, or put the Cathars in any heretical light.
Second, I simply said it shows an ascetic group that quotes much Scripture. What is wrong with quoting much Scripture and living sacrificially. Aside from the wrong doctrine that "Mother Theresa" taught, did you have something against her "ascetic lifestyle?"
Thirdly, I pointed out that meaning is lost in translation. That is true for the Bible, and everything that is translated. This particular document seems to be translated by a Catholic for a Protestant would never use such words as penance. But in the light of what I have previously stated that is a minor objection.
So what is your point?

 

[Matt Black]

My point is this: re-read the Interragatio Iohannis part of the Rituel. There you will see the following:

1. A lot of extra-Scriptural mythologising eg:

And when he had descended into the air, he said unto the angel of the air: Open unto me the gates of the air. And he opened them unto him. And he sought to go further downward and found the angel which held the waters, and said unto him: Open unto me the gates of the waters. And he opened to him. And he passed through and found all the face of the earth covered with waters. And he passed through beneath the earth and found two fishes lying upon the waters, and they were as oxen yoked for ploughing, holding the whole earth by the commandment of the invisible Father, from the west even unto the sunrising. And when he had gone down he found clouds hanging which held the waters of the sea. And he went down yet further and found hell, that is the gehenna of fire and thereafter he could go down no further because of the flame of the burning fire. And Satan returned back and filled up (passed over again) the paths and entered in unto the angel of the air and to him that was over the waters, and said unto them: All these things are mine: if ye will hearken unto me, I will set my seat in the clouds and be like the Most High, and I will take the waters from this upper firmament and gather together the other parts (places) of the sea, and thereafter there shall be no water upon the face of all the earth, and I will reign with you world without end.

2. Satan is portrayed as the author of creation, not God :

And Satan came down into this firmament, and he could find (make) no rest for himself nor for them that were with him. And he asked the Father saying: Have patience with me and I will pay thee all. And the Father had mercy on him and gave him rest and them that were with him, as much as they would even unto seven days.

And so sat he in the firmament and commanded the angel that was over the air and him that was over the waters, and they raised the earth up and it appeared dry: and he took the crown of the angel that was over the waters, and of the half thereof he made the light of the moon and of the half the light of the stars: and of the precious stones he made all the hosts of the stars.

And thereafter he made the angels his ministers according to the order of the form of the Most High, and by the commandment of the invisible Father he made thunder, rain, hail, and snow.

And he sent forth angels to be ministers over them. And he commanded the earth to bring forth every beast for food (fatling), and every creeping thing, and trees and herbs: and he commanded the sea to bring forth fishes, and the fowls of the heaven.

And he devised furthermore and made man in his likeness, and commanded the (or an) angel of the third heaven to enter into the body of clay. And he took thereof and made another body in the form of a woman, and commanded the (or an) angel of the second heaven to enter into the body of the woman. But the angel lamented when they beheld a mortal shape upon them and that they were unlike in shape. And he commanded them to do the deed of the flesh in the bodies of clay, and they knew not how to commit sin.

3. Dualism: flesh is 'evil', spirit is 'good'

And after that I, John, asked of the Lord, saying: How say men that Adam and Eve were created by God and set in paradise to keep the commandments of the Father, and were delivered unto death? And the Lord said to me: Hearken, John, beloved of my Father; foolish men say thus in their deceitfulness that my Father made bodies of clay: but by the Holy Ghost made he all the powers of the heavens, and holy ones were found having bodies of clay because of their transgression, and therefore were delivered unto death.

And again I, John, asked the Lord: How beginneth a man to be in the Spirit (to have a spirit) in a body of flesh? And the Lord said unto me: Certain of the angels which fell do enter unto the bodies of women, and receive flesh from the lust of the flesh, and so is a spirit born of spirit, and flesh of flesh, and so is the kingdom of Satan accomplished in this world and among all nations.

4. Satan is the God of the Old Testament, so we're back to the Marcionite 'OT god=bad, NT God=good'

Need I go on?

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... Thirdly, I pointed out that meaning is lost in translation. That is true for the Bible, and everything that is translated...

:thumbsup: ... :tonofbricks: ... :applause:


CA

 

[DHK]

My point is this: re-read the Interragatio Iohannis part of the Rituel. There you will see the following:

1. A lot of extra-Scriptural mythologising eg:

Surely you jest.
How much of C.S. Lewis's theology will you learn if you simply read "Screwtape Letters"? How much of Dante will you learn if you simply read "Dante's Inferno"?
If a person writes a piece of allegory or mythology outside of the Bible is he automatically condemned? Who made you his judge?

2. Satan is portrayed as the author of creation, not God

It seems that there are pieces missing. Creation and the fall of Satan are put together. We don't hesitate to admit that in many manuscripts there are sections missing. But we are quick to condemn here.

3. Dualism: flesh is 'evil', spirit is 'good'

That is hardly dualism but you are quick to find fault. That sounds like one trying to make good sense of the first part of Genesis 6.

Satan is the God of the Old Testament, so we're back to the Marcionite 'OT god=bad, NT God=good'

Satan is specifically said to be the god of this world. Do you have a problem with God's Word? The NT speaks of Christ overcoming Satan. Remember this is an ancient group who had to interpret many of the difficult passages of Scripture without Strong's Concordance, hundreds of theological works that have since been written, no computer libraries or other helps, no other libraries in existence that were available to them, and possibly some of them did not even have the entire NT. But you sit in your theological armchair ready to condemn at a moment's notice.

Need I go on?

No. You are far too judgmental and biased in your assessment. You look at history through rose-colored glasses and can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Eric B]

So you're making excuses for belief in Satan as the god of the OT, because they didn't have exegetical tools to interpret difficult passages? In that case, the Arians and every other group labeled "heretic" through the centuries should be justified and grouped as proto-Baptists, and anyone today who is an unbeliever because they couldn't understand "difficult passages"!
"God of this world" and "god of the Old Testament" are two totally different things!

 

[DHK]

So you're making excuses for belief in Satan as the god of the OT, because they didn't have exegetical tools to interpret difficult passages? In that case, the Arians and every other group labeled "heretic" through the centuries should be justified and grouped as proto-Baptists, and anyone today who is an unbeliever because they couldn't understand "difficult passages"!
"God of this world" and "god of the Old Testament" are two totally different things!

Show me where it clearly states that Satan is the God of the OT. Maybe that is Matt's belief or at least his belief coming from these passages.
I don't see it.
In fact there is so much allegory in these writings it is hard to decipher much of anything that is concrete. As a primary source used to verify Cathars doctrine or beliefs it is utterly useless IMO.

 

[Matt Black]

Surely you jest.
How much of C.S. Lewis's theology will you learn if you simply read "Screwtape Letters"? How much of Dante will you learn if you simply read "Dante's Inferno"?

What does that have to do with the Interragatio?

If a person writes a piece of allegory or mythology outside of the Bible is he automatically condemned? Who made you his judge?

Depends what the allegory said; this one is clearly putting forth ideas which are not just extra-Scriptural but anti-Scriptural. In any event, it puts paid to any suggestion that this group were in any way sola Scriptura.

It seems that there are pieces missing.

Really? How do you know? Or is this just what you'd like to believe, with no evidence?

Creation and the fall of Satan are put together.

Yes, erroneously. Further, the MS goes beyond that by attributing Creation to Satan.

We don't hesitate to admit that in many manuscripts there are sections missing. But we are quick to condemn here.

Provide me with evidence that there are sections missing from this MS and I'll pay attention.

That is hardly dualism but you are quick to find fault. That sounds like one trying to make good sense of the first part of Genesis 6.

It's a bit more than that, though, isn't it? Here, the author is explicitly stating that Satan created the world and that therefore all matter within it is evil; only spirit is good. That's classic gnostic dualism or Manicheanism for you.

Satan is specifically said to be the god of this world. Do you have a problem with God's Word?

No, but this MS goes considerably beyond and indeed contradicts God's Word by claiming that Satan is the author of Creation. Do you not have a problem with that?

The NT speaks of Christ overcoming Satan. Remember this is an ancient group who had to interpret many of the difficult passages of Scripture without Strong's Concordance, hundreds of theological works that have since been written, no computer libraries or other helps, no other libraries in existence that were available to them, and possibly some of them did not even have the entire NT. But you sit in your theological armchair ready to condemn at a moment's notice.

Their own words condemn them; they need no help from me!

No. You are far too judgmental and biased in your assessment. You look at history through rose-colored glasses and can't see the forest for the trees.

On the contrary, I look at the evidence and draw conclusions from it; it is you who are looking through rose-tinted glasses at this group and who is apparently wilfully blind to the evidence before his own eyes.

 

[Matt Black]

So you're making excuses for belief in Satan as the god of the OT, because they didn't have exegetical tools to interpret difficult passages? In that case, the Arians and every other group labeled "heretic" through the centuries should be justified and grouped as proto-Baptists

But that's exactly what the Trail of Blood does, and why it is such unmitigated nonsense.

 

[Matt Black]

Show me where it clearly states that Satan is the God of the OT.

Well, the God of the OT authored Creation and created Adam and Eve, yes? Well, the Interragatio states that Satan did that:

Then did the contriver of evil devise in his mind to make paradise, and he brought the man and woman into it. And he Commanded to bring a reed, and the devil planted it in the midst of paradise, and so did the wicked devil hide his device that they knew not his deceit. And he came in and spake unto them, saying: Of every fruit which is in paradise eat ye, but of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil eat not. Notwithstanding, the devil entered into a wicked serpent and seduced the angel that was in the form of the woman, and he wrought his lust with Eve in the Song of the serpent. And therefore are they called sons of the devil and sons of the serpent that do the lust of the devil their father, even unto the end of this world. And again the devil poured out upon the angel that was in Adam the poison of his lust, and it begetteth the sons of the serpent and the sons of the devil even unto the end of this world.

 

[DHK]

Well, the God of the OT authored Creation and created Adam and Eve, yes? Well, the Interragatio states that Satan did that:

You seem to contradict yourself Matt.
First you admit that this piece is a bit of mythology, which puts it outside of the realm of basic Biblical doctrine, something like Dante's Inferno. Now you are trying to draw firm and distinct doctrine from it. It seems like you are the one that is confused.

If I were you I would find some more reliable documents than to make this the source of your information about the doctrine of the Cathari, the Albigenses, etc. Don't put all your eggs into one basket, or you may be the one to find egg on your face.

 

[Matt Black]

Oh, come on! You don't get out of it that easily. I take it therefore that you don't have a problem with this group displaying the gnostic tendencies clearly expressed in this document?

 

[DHK]

Oh, come on! You don't get out of it that easily. I take it therefore that you don't have a problem with this group displaying the gnostic tendencies clearly expressed in this document?

Gnostic? Gnostic comes gnosis meaning "knowledge." It was a group existing at the time of John; one of the reasons he wrote his first epistle was to write against this group. One of the key words of First John is "know." They believed that they knew a superior knowledge that John and others could not know revealed to them by "the Spirit." But John was a first hand witness, who had seen, heard, touched, etc. How could they deny his words? John "knew!" Their "knowledge" was worthless. I don't see this "gnosticsm" in their writings, nor their claim to it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sorting this basic view out I began to wonder something. The contention is that the Baptist or baptist like believers were the original believers that were trained by the apostles and that they were misrepresented under different names. And that the CC and Jointly the OC have been ever been persecuting them. Now the things that make the CC and the OC in their distinctiveness has to do with (from a baptist POV) the celebration of the Eucharist. and the enjoining of the Sacraments. That works are a requirement. Also noted by DHK the CC was begun by Constantine (that devil emperor changing Christianity.)
So I looked around a little bit to see any evidence of this type of believer in the first two centuries and really haven't found a sign of them. However, a counter argument could be made that either all evidence of them was destroyed later by the Constanine version of Chrisitianity or they were under another name. or both. Looking at the Christian Sects of that time the closest are the Montanist which operate closer to Pentecostals and emphasise works (which is not sola fide). Still the Montanist had their sacraments though a popular sect and Tertullian a most prominent member. So not being satisfied that this could be seen by studing the divergant sects of christianity I looked to see if their were Catholic Distinctiveness before Constantine and low and behold there was. Sacraments and Eucharist (particularly) were practiced. Ah but this could be the embryonic devil church later solidified by Constantine in his RCC. So I read Justin's 1 Apology and find the very essense of christianity. Sound scriptural based doctrines. Use of much scriptures Many of which we are familiar with today. Truely man who understands Christianity. I also found these two teachings: Eucharist and Faith in Action. In fact, he pointedly says that there are those that call themselves Christian by their faith but with out works they are false. And he quotes scripture indicating how we are judged based on what we do. He mentions these Pseudo christians. the followers of Simon Magus, Menander, and Marcion. Justin also complains to the emperor that these do not suffer persecution by Rome but are free to worship as they will. Were as the true Christians are being Martyred frequently. Seems that this early baptist idea cannot be substanciated.

 

[DHK]

In fact, he pointedly says that there are those that call themselves Christian by their faith but with out works they are false. And he quotes scripture indicating how we are judged based on what we do. He mentions these Pseudo christians. the followers of Simon Magus, Menander, and Marcion. Justin also complains to the emperor that these do not suffer persecution by Rome but are free to worship as they will. Were as the true Christians are being Martyred frequently. Seems that this early baptist idea cannot be substanciated.

So salvation is by works.
Then Christianity was absent for over 1500 years and just miraculously appeared, when Luther got mad at Satan and threw and ink bottle at a wall. Somehow he discovered the long lost doctrine of justification by faith (and faith alone). You have a wild fanciful story.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So salvation is by works.
Then Christianity was absent for over 1500 years and just miraculously appeared, when Luther got mad at Satan and threw and ink bottle at a wall. Somehow he discovered the long lost doctrine of justification by faith (and faith alone). You have a wild fanciful story.

I like that. But you're closer to what I think is truth. I gave an anology with regard to Catholic thought about works. I think this is how Justin Martyr is viewing it.
In the military you join by signing the dotted line and pledging to defend the constitution with your life. So you are at that point government property. (saved) But you must adhere to the military code of conduct in order to stay in or find yourself getting kicked out. (living rightly) So Justin is saying that you must live like a Christian to be one. A Calvinist would say if you're not living as a Christian you never were saved. Of course the Early Church didn't have Calvin. So I think the military analogy is closer to what Justin is speaking about. Either way Christ is still the expiation (spelling) for our sins. And it seems that my wild and fanciful story is what most credible scholars and historians believe with regard to Christian history. There is no evidence for another version. Christianity never looked like it does today. If you were to compare yourself to Christians of the 1st and 2nd century you would find significant differences. So Christianity was very successful for 1500 years but looked a lot different than today. It was because of Luther and others before him that Christianity has developed into what we have today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is what Justin was thinking and what I'm referring to.

And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: “Not every one who saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. For whosoever heareth Me, and doeth My sayings, heareth Him that sent Me. And many will say unto Me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Thy name, and done wonders? And then will I say unto them, Depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity. Then shall there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine as the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves. By their works ye shall know them. And every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.”17991799 Matt. vii. 21, etc.; Luke xiii. 26; Matt. xiii. 42, Matt. vii. 15, 16, 19. And as to those who are not living pursuant to these His teachings, and are Christians only in name, we demand that all such be punished by you.

 

[DHK]

Here is what Justin was thinking and what I'm referring to.

First, to prove whatever point Justin is making he is quoting from a passage where Jesus is warning against false teachers which makes his argument weak.

Secondly it is unclear whether his position is similar to the COC, where works is a requirement for salvation, or:
similar to the RCC where salvation is by works and maintained by works, or:
similar to the Baptist where salvation is by faith, and works follow after salvation.

If it is the latter, he has not said so. He has not said anything clear about salvation by faith. He seems to link salvation to works.

 

[Matt Black]

So salvation is by works.
Then Christianity was absent for over 1500 years and just miraculously appeared, when Luther got mad at Satan and threw and ink bottle at a wall. Somehow he discovered the long lost doctrine of justification by faith (and faith alone). You have a wild fanciful story.

Or that Christianity has always been around and the Catholics and Orthodox have it more right than you'd ever care to admit

 

[DHK]

Or that Christianity has always been around and the Catholics and Orthodox have it more right than you'd ever care to admit

See the other thread.
The RCC teaches that "Born again" = baptism, without which one cannot be saved.

The Orthodox teach that baptism is given for the remission of sins, by which one is justified.

The Bible says: Only the blood of Christ can wash away your sins (never water or baptism).
And it does not teach that the new birth is baptism.

These religions are bound up in man-made heretical teachings that the apostles never taught. Therefore the true teachings of Christianity were kept by those churches outside of these man-made organizations.