Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Jerome]

Sloppy research is dismissing the Hosius quote (anyone recall the OP?) apparently based on the clueless mistaking of the bibliographic citation word apud for part of a book title.

Sloppy research is, when someone else actually does the leg work and authenticates Hosius's words [post 152], continuing to cry "hoax" [post 153].

 

[Matt Black]

I'm afraid you haven't authenticated Hosius' words. The way to do that would be to provide a hyperlink to the direct primary source documents, not a seoncdary alleged quote from 1565 (you haven't even given us a link to that). You will struggle to provide such a link to Apud Opera, simply because this work does not exist. The first edition of Hosius' works was published in 1584 and there is no reference to such a quote or such a title; indeed the supposed quote is not...er...quoted until the 19th century (you see, I have done my leg work). I would suggest you read this, for example - it's written by a Baptist so I'm sure you won't have a quarrel based on sectarian grounds with it, which comprehensively debunks the quote. (Now, if you want to hang something on old Stanislas' letter to the Duke of Bavaria (reference to 1200 years), then that might have some legs and we can have a serious debate about it.)

This theme, stated not only by Carroll, Armitage, Christian, Zwingli, and many on this board cannot go unnoticed.
[/size]
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pius/chapter01.htm

[/indent]

Zwingli is hardly primary: he lived from 1484 to 1531; the last Cathars were exterminated by the Catholics in the early 14th century ie: approximately 150 years before he was born. Carroll, Armitage and Christian come even later than Zwingli. You really don't understand the definition of this word 'primary', do you?

 

[Jerome]

I'm afraid you haven't authenticated Hosius' words. The way to do that would be to provide a hyperlink to the direct primary source documents, not a seoncdary alleged quote from 1565 (you haven't even given us a link to that).

I typed out for you Hosius's words from the 1565 English translation of his 1559 work De origine haeresium nostri temporis. The book is digitized at the Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation.

You will struggle to provide such a link to Apud Opera, simply because this work does not exist.

As I said, apud is not part of a book title, but a citation word like Ibid. David Lamb tried to explain this to Dr. Bob a year ago, but Dr. Bob persisted in misreading Apud as part of a book title. Ben Townsend's hoax assertions are likewise based on his failure to comprehend this.

The first edition of Hosius' works was published in 1584

Where do you come up with this nonsense? Editions of Hosius's Works were published in 1562, 1566, 1571, etc. Google Books

 

[Matt Black]

I can't open either of your links to be able to read any text, so I'm at present unable to verify your claim. What I'm after from you (or indeed anyone) is a working link that leads to a primary source text, the authenticity of which is independently verifiable.

And I should have said that a collected version of Hosius' works was not published until 1584. My bad.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I typed out for you Hosius's words from the 1565 English translation of his 1559 work De origine haeresium nostri temporis. The book is digitized at the Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation.


As I said, apud is not part of a book title, but a citation word like Ibid. David Lamb tried to explain this to Dr. Bob a year ago, but Dr. Bob persisted in misreading Apud as part of a book title. Ben Townsend's hoax assertions are likewise based on his failure to comprehend this.


Where do you come up with this nonsense? Editions of Hosius's Works were published in 1562, 1566, 1571, etc. Google Books

I'm having a problem with that link the translation of the title is the origins of the heresies of our times. Is that what you're referring to?

 

[DHK]

Zwingli is hardly primary: he lived from 1484 to 1531; the last Cathars were exterminated by the Catholics in the early 14th century ie: approximately 150 years before he was born. Carroll, Armitage and Christian come even later than Zwingli. You really don't understand the definition of this word 'primary', do you?

You never even understood the point I was making did you?
I wasn't even trying either to find, or to quote from a primary source.
Statements such as Zwingli's and many others cannot go unnoticed. The hundreds and perhaps thousands of men who believe this simple premise, that God has preserved for himself a people, called out by His name (Christ), called out of darkness into his marvellous light to sing forth His praises; those who are a royal priesthood, a holy nation. These exist outside the RCC, the Orthodox, the Anglican, etc. in every age or generation from the time of the apostles onward. If they don't Christ is a liar and unfaithful to his Word. The Great Commission was a failure from the start. For 1500 years God was impotent and unable to keep his Word. This is the conclusion I must draw from your beliefs, because the RCC certainly cannot be a bearer of his Word; it is an apostate organization that has murdered Christians throughout its ugly history, its doctrine going contrary to the Word of God, its disciples and followers abhorrent in both practice and in doctrine. Christ had no such organization to preserve his Word; His doctrines; His people.

 

[Matt Black]

And you're missing the cardinal point here, bigtime: you have failed to demonstrate the accuracy of your thesis, failed to adduce any proper ie: primary source evidence for your theory; indeed you dismiss primary sources as unimportant when they are presented to you. Just because people like Zwingli believed it to be true doesn't make it so; for centuries people believed the earth was the centre of the universe - large numbers of people believing a lie doesn't turn that lie into truth.

So, an even bigger 'F' for history for you than I previously thought...

 

[DHK]

And you're missing the cardinal point here, bigtime: you have failed to demonstrate the accuracy of your thesis, failed to adduce any proper ie: primary source evidence for your theory; indeed you dismiss primary sources as unimportant when they are presented to you. Just because people like Zwingli believed it to be true doesn't make it so; for centuries people believed the earth was the centre of the universe - large numbers of people believing a lie doesn't turn that lie into truth.

So, an even bigger 'F' for history for you than I previously thought...

They believed the world is flat too; not much difference.
Who is the one with the "F"? You still believe that the world is flat, not I.
For 1500 years you still believe Christianity did not exist. There is no way that it could have existed in the RCC or similar churches. Then where did it exist? I have given you plausible evidence. You have given none. You still believe the earth is flat. It is your "F."

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Who is the one with the "F"? You still believe that the world is flat, not I.
For 1500 years you still believe Christianity did not exist. There is no way that it could have existed in the RCC or similar churches. Then where did it exist? I have given you plausible evidence. You have given none. You still believe the earth is flat. It is your "F."

DHK, Matt said nothing about the earth being "flat", he said the earth being the "center" of the universe...big difference...so not only do you get an "F" in history, as Matt pointed out...you also get a big 'ol "F" for reading comprehension, as I've pointed out before.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They believed the world is flat too; not much difference.
Who is the one with the "F"? You still believe that the world is flat, not I.
For 1500 years you still believe Christianity did not exist. There is no way that it could have existed in the RCC or similar churches. Then where did it exist? I have given you plausible evidence. You have given none. You still believe the earth is flat. It is your "F."

You're mistaken. And Matt is a little off. Christopher Columbus wasn't a the theoretical genius people make him out to be. Many people believed the world was round to include members of the Catholic Church. What Christopher Columbus did was take the next step. Applied the theory. And as far as the center of the universe its actually a debate between geocentric vs. heliocentric. Galileo's view was that the sun was stationary and everything revolved around the sun. The Catholic Officials felt that this Cappernican teaching would deminish the value of mankind and his dwelling place from a theological basis. So caused his recanting from a heliocentric universe model. In reality nothing in the universe in stationary. Nothing we've discovered anyway.

 

[DHK]

You're mistaken. And Matt is a little off. Christopher Columbus wasn't a the theoretical genius people make him out to be. Many people believed the world was round to include members of the Catholic Church. What Christopher Columbus did was take the next step. Applied the theory. And as far as the center of the universe its actually a debate between geocentric vs. heliocentric. Galileo's view was that the sun was stationary and everything revolved around the sun. The Catholic Officials felt that this Cappernican teaching would deminish the value of mankind and his dwelling place from a theological basis. So caused his recanting from a heliocentric universe model. In reality nothing in the universe in stationary. Nothing we've discovered anyway.

Illustrations are not the point. One can argue about geocentric universes, flat earth theories, or even the invention of the wheel. They are all just examples of ignorance, and some deliberately so. For example there is a Flat Earth Society that still exists today in spite of the fact of men walking on the moon and able to view the earth from that perspective, or in spite of the fact of thousands of people that travel by air and are able to see the circular horizon of the earth every day. It cannot be denied.

It also cannot be denied that Christianity was not wiped out for 1500 years. God promised that he would always have a witness for himself. That witness would not be through an apostate organization. This Matt fails to admit.

 

[Jerome]

I can't open either of your links to be able to read any text, so I'm at present unable to verify your claim. What I'm after from you (or indeed anyone) is a working link that leads to a primary source text, the authenticity of which is independently verifiable.

Unfortunately, the whole of published knowledge is not instantaneously accessible with the simple click of a mouse. I posted links to the bibliographical information and an electronic resource you could use in "independently verifying" Hosius's words. You'll have to do the rest of the leg work yourself. Many university libraries provide access to the Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation or Early English Books Online (which has microfilmed images of the book), or you could try interlibrary loan.

And I should have said that a collected version of Hosius' works was not published until 1584. My bad.

Simply not true. Editions of his collected works were published in the 1560s and 1570s:

Opera D. Stanislai Hosii . . . in unum corpus jam primum collecta (1562)

D. S. Hosii Opera quae hactenus extiterunt omnia, inprimis pia et erudita, atque in unum corpus collecta (1566)

Stanislai Hosii . . . Opera omnia hactenus edita, in vnum corpus collecta (1573)

 

[Matt Black]

I still can't access any of these links to read your assertions, so I'm unable to verify their accuracy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Illustrations are not the point. One can argue about geocentric universes, flat earth theories, or even the invention of the wheel. They are all just examples of ignorance, and some deliberately so. For example there is a Flat Earth Society that still exists today in spite of the fact of men walking on the moon and able to view the earth from that perspective, or in spite of the fact of thousands of people that travel by air and are able to see the circular horizon of the earth every day. It cannot be denied.

It also cannot be denied that Christianity was not wiped out for 1500 years. God promised that he would always have a witness for himself. That witness would not be through an apostate organization. This Matt fails to admit.

I agree with your satement except the illustrations do matter if you want the right ones. but your point is taken. I agree with your last but I'm suggestion how you perceive that Christianity was not wiped out for 1500 is incorrect. I believe that Christianity was maintained in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Churches. I believe that Christianity today looks nothing like Christianity did with the apostles. Though certainly the same principles are held. Christianity in all the above mentioned Churches and in the protestant churches have developed through out the centuries to acheive where we are at now. Certainly if Paul went to a baptist church we would not immediately recognize it for what it was. Nor would he do for the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. We live in a different world. different values that have been promoted by the very churches mentioned. Rome is no longer a valid City State Empire. It's values, its temples long since passed out of time. Israel of today would be very confusing to Paul. They are not the biblical Israel. Certainly there are traces of these civilizations yet by far they are no more. This is my point. You can't claim Apostolic Succession for baptist since it certainly is not the case. The closest we can come to it are those Orthodox and Catholic churches that have come through time from their original Polis or Metro-polis churches such as Antioch, and Rome. And even these have changed through time. Even the Church at Jerusalem was dismantled in 70 AD with the rest of Jerusalem only to be re-established years later by a non Apostle. This is the truth of the matter to claim otherwise as in the trail of blood seems pretentious, deceptive, and self serving diservice to believers of Jesus' words. In otherwords its a scam meant to give false historical credence to a group of believers feeling the need for it. I believe Carol to be an insecure preacher with the need to be historically justified. The same would go for Zwigli. Because as you know the Catholic Church at the time was well established and had history. Obviously there were things wrong in the Catholic Church at that time and to question its authority naturally lead to questioning its history. And for those certain of their faith (zwigli, Carol) they felt the need to look for all decenters and claim a kinship whether a kinship existed or not and from it built a fictional account of Christianity (Unwittingly? Most likely from insecurity). Like The US and USSR allied in WWII together. It would be wrong to see from this allegance that they were of the same value system or decended from the same idiology though there were similarities. Both Countries were founded by revolution to a new idea! Both are countries claiming to be a goverment of the people. It doesn't make them have the same values. Such as Carol attemps to do with the Trail of Blood.

 

[Matt Black]

Exactly. ToB, Landmarkism and Successionism are basically ahistorical revisionism.

The line of argument is as follows1) Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not and cannot possibly ever have been Christian, therefore (2)there must have been some kind of shadow 'True Church' that existed in parallel for Christ's words in Matt 16:18 to have been true, even though (3) there may be no primary source evidence for the existence of such an entity. The possibility that (1) is a false premise may not be entertained.

The problem with this thesis is two-fold:

1. #1 above is a moot point and is not objectively verifiable; one can believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are and always were apostate, antichrist or whatever other perjorative title you wish to give them, but that's a matter of opinion only - the possibility at least of #1 being a false premise must be admitted for the opinion to be taken seriously.

2. The absence of primary source material to support #2.

 

[Jerome]

I still can't access any of these links to read your assertions, so I'm unable to verify their accuracy.

Yes, as I said, you probably would need to use a library to access Hosius's book, as it currently available only in print form and in subscription-based electronic databases.

 

[DHK]

Exactly. ToB, Landmarkism and Successionism are basically ahistorical revisionism.
1. Most history that I have seen is Catholic revisionism.
2. How many times have I repeated that there are historical mistakes in the Trail of Blood?
3. Personally I am not a Landmarkist, and I don't think that you know what one is either.
4. Neither am I a successionist, but I have already told you that.
You fail on all of the above. So what is your point?

The line of argument is as follows1) Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not and cannot possibly ever have been Christian,

Right. It is an impossibility. Compare them with the churches at Philippi, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Antioch, and other churches that Paul started on his three missionary journeys. How do they compare to those churches? They fail miserably. They are unlike those churches in every possible way. Yet most of our Baptist churches are patterened after the NT churches. And as far as Biblical history is concerned it has been that way throughout the ages. God has never left himself without a history.
The ones claiming successionism are the RCC and the Orthodox.
therefore (2)there must have been some kind of shadow 'True Church' that existed in parallel for Christ's words in Matt 16:18 to have been true, even though (3) there may be no primary source evidence for the existence of such an entity.

We know that the churches at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thesallonica, etc. existed. There in the Bible. That is our primary source. It is our final and authoritative source. It is inspired of God. No source can ever be greater than the Scriptures. Here are some other churches mentioned:

Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Outside of the Bible can you provide the "primary sources" for these churches? I didn't think so. You have none.
Paul started over one hundred churches on just three mission journeys.
How much primary source material can you come up with?
I have the Bible. What do you have?

The possibility that (1) is a false premise may not be entertained.

Do you call the Bible a false premise?

The problem with this thesis is two-fold:

1. #1 above is a moot point and is not objectively verifiable; one can believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are and always were apostate, antichrist or whatever other perjorative title you wish to give them, but that's a matter of opinion only

It is not opinion when one can prove beyond any doubt that its doctrines are contrary to Biblical doctrine and therefore could not be the bearer of the gospel message. A gospel of works sends people to Hell not heaven. The RCC preaches a gospel of works. What does the Bible say:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
--Both the Orthodox and the RCC preach another gospel.
- the possibility at least of #1 being a false premise must be admitted for the opinion to be taken seriously.

2. The absence of primary source material to support #2.

Again, to deny the Bible as primary source material is quite a serious accusation.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

We know that the churches at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thesallonica, etc. existed. There in the Bible. That is our primary source. It is our final and authoritative source. It is inspired of God. No source can ever be greater than the Scriptures. Here are some other churches mentioned:

Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Outside of the Bible can you provide the "primary sources" for these churches? I didn't think so. You have none.
Paul started over one hundred churches on just three mission journeys.
How much primary source material can you come up with?
I have the Bible. What do you have?

The Orthodox Church I belong to is one of the five patriarchates which is the Church of Antioch, which was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul as Holy Scripture states.

Here's a list of the Patriarchs of Antioch starting with St. Peter and ending with the current Patriarch Ignatius IV (Hazim).

List of Patriarchs of Antioch

Our own Archdiocese in North America is self ruled, our Metropolitan is Philip who was consecrated to the episcopacy by the Patriarch Theodosius IV of Antioch in 1966.

The Bishop of Wichita and Mid-American is Bishop Basil who's seat is at our Cathedral here in Wichita and was elevated to the episcopacy in 1992 by our Metropolitan Philip.

So pay attention....

Our Bishop Basil can trace the hands laid upon him back to the Apostle Peter himself.

The link above shows the list of Patriarchs from St. Peter to Ignatius IV and in doing so, our own Bishop Basil can trace the hands that were laid upon him to St. Petern through our Met. Philip via the then current Patriarch of Antioch in 1966.

Oh and before you try and write off the list as bogus, there's plenty of "primary sources" (letters) that attest to the fact that these Patriarchs listed were Patriarchs of the same Antioch of that of St. Peter , since the majority of them were martyred and letters (eye witness accounts) written makes mention of them and their role in the Church at Antioch.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

The Orthodox Church I belong to is one of the five patriarchates which is the Church of Antioch, which was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul as Holy Scripture states.

Here's a list of the Patriarchs of Antioch starting with St. Peter and ending with the current Patriarch Ignatius IV (Hazim).

List of Patriarchs of Antioch

Our own Archdiocese in North America is self ruled, our Metropolitan is Philip who was consecrated to the episcopacy by the Patriarch Theodosius IV of Antioch in 1966.

You make some absurd claims.
You have no proof that Peter was the first primate of the church at Antioch in the same way that the RCC has no proof that he was first pope of the church at Rome. (Why not start a war over it? )
Your succession is greatly flawed and thus no succession at all. We are speaking of believers no apostates in every generation. So let's consider your list:

Paul of Samosata was a third-century Syrian theologian and heretical patriarchhttp://orthodoxwiki.org/Patriarch of Antioch. To defend Christianity's monotheism against charges of tritheism, Paul espoused a definition of the relationship among the three persons of the Godhead that denied the personal distinction of the divine Son and Holy Spirit in contrast to God the Father, thus contradicting the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

--Do you have a succession of heretics? Is this what you are talking about?
--Here is another:

The holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Evodius (also known as Euodios of Antioch, Euodus, Euodias, Evodias, Evodios) is numbered among the Seventy Apostles, and was first bishop of Syrian Antioch, after the holy Apostle Peter. He is commemorated by the Church on September 7 with Apostle Onesiphorus. The Apostles of the 70 were chosen and sent by the Lord Jesus Christ himself to preach. They were chosen some time after the selection of the Twelve Apostles (Luke 10:1-24). All seventy are commemorated by the Church on January 4.
Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer, disciple of the holy Apostle John the Theologian, mentions him in his Letter to the Antiochians: "Remember your blessed father Evodius, who was made your first pastor by the Apostles."
In one of St. Evodus' several compositions, he wrote that the Theotokos gave birth to the Savior of the world at the age of fifteen. Other writings of the saint have not survived. A book entitled The Star or The Beacon is mentioned by the fourteenth-century Church historian Nicephorus Callistus.
St. Evodius served as bishop for 27 years and died as a martyr in the year 66, under the emperor Nero (54-68).

First, where is your primary source for this information?
Secondly, you simply make this up. "Theotokos" is a man-made doctrine of the RCC and Orthodox churches. It is not Biblical and not believed by other churches.

You have no evidence that he was among the 70, no evidence that he was connected with Peter, or with Jesus. This is all "made up material," fiction. Again, where is your primary source material that gives evidence for this material besides the imagination of some man's thoughts?

Oh and before you try and write off the list as bogus, there's plenty of "primary sources" (letters) that attest to the fact that these Patriarchs listed were Patriarchs of the same Antioch of that of St. Peter , since the majority of them were martyred and letters (eye witness accounts) written makes mention of them and their role in the Church at Antioch.

In XC
-

But you can't provide these primary sources can you?
And you probably have some excuse for their heretical beliefs don't you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually its easy for him to list the bishops of Antioch and Rome. Have you read Eusibius?