Trail of Blood

[Alan Gross]

Genuine Christianity stands and falls with the New Testament texts.

3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church* the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

*the church at Ephesus, and by implication to all other local churches of the Lord.

21 Unto him be glory in the church* by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

*the church at Ephesus, and by implication to all other local churches of the Lord.

 

[Alan Gross]

I agree. And it has and will. Just not on the grounds the Roman Catholic Church built.

"It is very strange that Protestant historians, who denounce the Roman Catholic Church as being manifestly anti-christ, the "Man of Sin," and the "Son of Perdition," and who teach that there has ever been those who dissented from her evil practices since the second century and would have no communion with her, are so presumptuous as to trace the history of the church of Christ through her line of descent and thus acknowledge her to be the church of Christ from the time of the first division down to the Reformation of the sixteenth century - a period of thirteen hundred years!

"How very absurd! T"he question arises at once, Why do they thus plunge into the absurdity of self-contradiction?

"The answer is self-evident.

"To acknowledge the dissenting party of Ana-baptists, as they were termed during this period, to be the true successors of the apostolic church, would be to destroy at once their own claims and admit the claim made today by the Primitive Baptists.

"Therefore, they choose to contradict themselves, rather than admit the just claims of a "sect that is still everywhere spoken against."

- Elder John R. Daily, Primitive Monitor, pp. 366-369.

Primitive Baptist Library: The Paulicians

 

[Alan Gross]

I think it's very dangerous to try and link modern baptists with these groups from the past.

I am already linked to them, as a child of those who were martyred.

The Love of God and Contending for the Faith Cost Millions of Baptist Forefathers their Lives.

I very much doubt Carroll would have listed many of those sects were his booklet written today.

This is one of those subjects that the more I learn about it the more convinced I am.

"In Armenia, about the year 660 AD there was a young gnostic thinker named “Constantine.” He is not to be confused with the emperor with that name.

"The man was an heretic, a follower of the Persian prophet Mani, or Manes, the creator of “Manichaeism.” Manichaeism combined the religions of Zoroaster, and Gnosticism with bit of corrupted Christianity.

*It basically taught that in creation there is a battle between two equals – light and darkness; good and evil. It denies the deity of Christ, the omnipotence of Jehovah, the inerrancy of the Word of God and just about every other doctrine which we hold dear.

"This Constantine was a Manichean, in the same what that Saul was once an unsaved Pharisaic Jew.

"In the year 660 Constantine sheltered a Christian who was fleeing Mohammedan captivity in Syria. In gratitude to his host, the man gave to Constantine a copy of the four gospels and the epistles of Paul.

"Gibbon, the author of “The Rise and Fall of Roman Empire” wrote: “These books became the measure of his studies and the rule of his faith; And the Catholics, who dispute his interpretation, acknowledge that his text was genuine and sincere.

"In the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, his faithful follower investigated the creed of the primitive Christianity, and whatever maybe the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit of the inquiry.”

"In essence, this secular historian with his Protestant background, says that Constantine went back to the original doctrines and practices of Biblical Christianity."

"Because Constantine was becoming popular and powerful, teaching doctrines which undermined the growing Catholic doctrines and practices, both Rome and Constantinople began a counter-attack.

"And because Constantine had been a Manichean, that was the charge used against him. Do you suppose that Paul was ever described as “that renegade Pharisee”?

"J. M. Cramp wrote; “Manichaiesm was looked upon as a concentration of all that was outrageously bad in religious opinion, and it became the fashion to call ALL heretics Maniceans.

"Hence many excellent men have been so stigmatized whose views and practices accorded with the word of God.”

"What did the Paulicians believe? Was it Baptist doctrine?

"J.T. Christian says, “Turning to the doctrines and practices of the Paulicians we find that they made constant use of the Old and New Testaments (and nothing more).

"They had no orders in the clergy as distinguished from laymen by their modes of living, their dress, or other things; they had no councils or similar institutions.

"Their teachers were of equal rank. They strove diligently for the simplicity of the apostolic life. They opposed all image worship which was practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. The miraculous relics were a heap of bones and ashes, destitute of life and of virtue.

"They held to the orthodox view of the Trinity; and to the human nature and substantial sufferings of the Son of God.

"Baptist views prevailed among the Paulicians.

"They held that men must repent and believe, and then at a mature age ask for baptism, which alone admitted them into the church.

‘It is evident,’ observes Mosheim, ‘they rejected the baptism of infants.’ They baptized and rebaptized by immersion. They would have been taken for downright Anabaptists.”

"I. K. Cross summarized his study of the Paulicians this way – They held tenaciously to the sacred writings. They were especially concerned with the writings of the apostle Paul, determined to build their churches upon his teachings, and their ministers tried to follow in his footsteps to the extent that they adopted the name of his followers as their own."0

 

[JonC]

"It is very strange that Protestant historians, who denounce the Roman Catholic Church as being manifestly anti-christ, the "Man of Sin," and the "Son of Perdition," and who teach that there has ever been those who dissented from her evil practices since the second century and would have no communion with her, are so presumptuous as to trace the history of the church of Christ through her line of descent and thus acknowledge her to be the church of Christ from the time of the first division down to the Reformation of the sixteenth century - a period of thirteen hundred years!

"How very absurd! T"he question arises at once, Why do they thus plunge into the absurdity of self-contradiction?

"The answer is self-evident.

"To acknowledge the dissenting party of Ana-baptists, as they were termed during this period, to be the true successors of the apostolic church, would be to destroy at once their own claims and admit the claim made today by the Primitive Baptists.

"Therefore, they choose to contradict themselves, rather than admit the just claims of a "sect that is still everywhere spoken against."

- Elder John R. Daily, Primitive Monitor, pp. 366-369.

Primitive Baptist Library: The Paulicians

The problem is creating a mythology to support a Catholic understanding of church. This is what Landmarkism ultimately does.

I agree that there were baptistic churches throughout history. This is evident in the heretical sects we know of (like the Paulicians) as well as ana-baptist churches.

The reason I say this is that the Paulicians held baptistic views (we actually do not know to what extent as Landmark "historians" have simply stated what they cannot actually evidence in many instances), however they are known for their heresies. This leads us to the conclusion that baptistic beliefs outside of the Paulician cult existed during that period.

I agree that the true church existed outside of the Roman Catholic Church.


My issue with the idea you are advancing is that the idea of Landmarkism itself is Roman Catholic. Landmarkism views God maintaining His church in much the same way as Roman Catholics.

The myth was created in opposition to Roman Catholic claims. Where Landmark Baptists should have dismissed Catholic claims as a misunderstanding of the nature of the church they instead adopted a Roman Catholic mindset. They also misunderstood the nature of the church.

Landmarkism all but holds the "Trail of Tears" as a sacred text. Unfortunately it only highlights aspects of past sects....some Christian, others not...that they agree with and ignore the remainder.


Every pre-16th Century sect listed in the "Trail of Tears" would have considered Landmark Baptists doctrine (and the doctrine of most Baptist churches today) to be heresy.

Yet somehow Landmark Baptists are content to unite, figuratively, with these sects....even some that were themselves heretical cults.


Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

 

[JonC]

"In Armenia, about the year 660 AD there was a young gnostic thinker named “Constantine.” He is not to be confused with the emperor with that name.

"The man was an heretic, a follower of the Persian prophet Mani, or Manes, the creator of “Manichaeism.” Manichaeism combined the religions of Zoroaster, and Gnosticism with bit of corrupted Christianity.

*It basically taught that in creation there is a battle between two equals – light and darkness; good and evil. It denies the deity of Christ, the omnipotence of Jehovah, the inerrancy of the Word of God and just about every other doctrine which we hold dear.

The Paulicians held very similar views, but it is a mistake to confuse their beliefs with Manichaeism.

Manichaeism was in the 3rd Century. The information you provided about the religion is fairly accurate. Mani founded Manichaeism in the 3rd Century and it was a major religion. It was dualistic, as you describe.


But regarding the Paulician faith - we know very little. We do know that they held a belief that was very similar to Manichaeism. But the dualistic faith of the Paulicians is present in several cults.

We do know that the Paulician were a cult that blended Christianity with a dualistic cult religion. But we do not know if it was Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, or another cult.

We do know that Paulicanism venerated the Apostle Paul (and were persecuted by iconoclasts).

We know that they rejected parts of the New Testament and the entire Old Testament of Scripture.

We know that they were a heretical sect.

And we know that they held some beliefs in common with Baptists.

 

[JonC]

The main question we need to ask is "why".

Why would a Baptist seek to find a line of like-minded churches through history? The reason was to argue against Catholics by claiming the exact same thing they claim.

Why would a Baptist define a "true church" as a sect that holds the Baptist distinctives? This is an unbiblical definition of a church (biblically it's a congregation united in the gospel of Christ....and biblically churches have always had differences in doctrine and even mistakes).


A true church is a congregation united in Christ. A community of believers.

This church may be Baptist, or Mennonite, or Methodist, or Presbyterian, or even Catholic.

Why? Because of Jesus Christ. A church is not its doctrine but its people.

The church in Jerusalem was not less a church for maintaining Jewish traditions. The church in Corinth was no less a church because of its issues with doctrine and secularism. The Galatians, the Christians in Rome.....these constituted no less a church even though they had different doctrines.

Why? Because they were a community of believers forming congregations united in Jesus Christ.

I firmly believe that the gospel of Christ trumps any of the Baptist distinctives.


You want to know my "Trail of Blood"? It is not a line of like-minded churches throughout history.

My trail of blood starts and stops at the feet of Jesus Christ. And this is communicated to me not through a line of churches throughout history but by God Himself through His Word.

I simply do not find a need to look for two thousand years of like-minded churches because I have the Source of my faith.

 

[Alan Gross]

I don't know from whence this superabundance of superfluous postulations spring, but since stating opinions as facts not only carries the day here, but can get you banned if you are in disagreement , I hazard to suggest that I know of no evidence for any of the following wild and rash assertions and I do not believe any evidence exists;

My main issue with the idea is it assumes a RCC understanding of "true church".

The "Trail of Blood" is, in this sense, a work of fiction to support a myth that we, as believers, have no need.

It is seeking a legitimately on RCC grounds.

The problem is that they would not be allowed on this board because they were heretics.

And we see claiming a kinship to heretical sects simply because of common baptistic beliefs throughout the "trail of blood".

I have an issue accepting as Baptist sects that I genuinely question were even Christian.

those who held Baptist distinctives but rejected doctrines like the Trinity, or the humanity of Christ.

The problem is creating a mythology

support a Catholic understanding of church. This is what Landmarkism ultimately does.

heretical sects we know of (like the Paulicians)

Landmark "historians"

simply stated what they cannot actually evidence in many instances)

they are known for their heresies

My issue with the idea you are advancing is that the idea of Landmarkism itself is Roman Catholic.

Landmarkism views God maintaining His church in much the same way as Roman Catholics.

The myth

created in opposition to Roman Catholic claims

Where Landmark Baptists should have dismissed Catholic claims as a misunderstanding of the nature of the church they instead adopted a Roman Catholic mindset.

They also misunderstood the nature of the church.

Landmarkism all but holds the "Trail of Tears" as a sacred text.

Unfortunately it only highlights aspects of past sects....some Christian, others not.

Every pre-16th Century sect listed in the "Trail of Tears" would have considered Landmark Baptists doctrine (and the doctrine of most Baptist churches today) to be heresy.

Yet somehow Landmark Baptists are content to unite, figuratively, with these sects....even some that were themselves heretical cults.

 

[Alan Gross]

Any of you ever read "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carrol

What was your opinion?

Thanks for asking.

It is an indispensable introductory treatment of the True History of True Christianity, in and through the various groups of believers who held to the Pattern Jesus laid down, along with the remainder of the New Testament, as to what constituted a True church of the Lord Jesus, which has a Candlestick of the Indwelling Presence of the Shekinah Glory in it, as a Habitation of God through the Spirit, and as to how Christians are to worship God, acceptively, during our present Age of Churches.

Zechariah 6:12-15; "And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD."

13 "Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

14 "And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD.

"15 "And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God."

I Timothy 3:15; "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Revelation 3:22; ”He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

While much of world and religious history has been written by some of the staunchest opponents of True Christianity, known to mankind, the inference of The Trail of Blood is that there is evidence from history that True Christian societies faithful to The Lordship of Christ have existed and been sustained by the Omnipotence of God, throughout all ages, since Jesus Founded His first church, as a Divine Organization to be His witness in this Era, and that the evidence of them can be located where their presence is indicated by a trail left in their own blood.

Here is their blood: The Love of God and Contending for the Faith Cost Millions of Baptist Forefathers their Lives.

Hebrews 11:4; "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

Genesis 4:10; "And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

 

[JonC]

I don't know from whence this superabundance of superfluous postulations spring, but since stating opinions as facts not only carries the day here, but can get you banned if you are in disagreement , I hazard to suggest that I know of no evidence for any of the following wild and rash assertions and I do not believe any evidence exists;

The facts concerning the Paulicians is based on what we know of the sect from historical records (this is how we know the sect still existed by 720AD). Theophanes, Photius and Sikeliotes provide the only known facts about the cult.

By Landmark "historians" I am referring to Landmark people who write histories of these sects, adding to what is actually known and ignoring facts that cause questions.

By the Landmark movement I mean the fact that the movement grew out of a sense of need to challenge Roman Catholic claims by presented like claims of its own.

By adopting the Roman Catholic understanding of "church" I am referring to the idea that a line of churches can be traces based on doctrine to the New Testament. This is an unbiblical idea of what constitutes a true church.

 

[Alan Gross]

1. John’s baptism was not Christian baptism.

Jesus Christ said that there was "not a greater prophet"
(of God, obviously) "than John the Baptist."

27 "This is he, of whom it is written,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee.

28 "For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women
there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist:

John the Baptist was "a man sent from God".

John 1:6; "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."

The Sovereign Lord God of the Universe,
God the Father, sent John the Baptist to baptised.

John 1:33; "And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water,
the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending,
and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."

Jesus had All Power and The Authority of God in Heaven and Earth.

Matthew 28:18; "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Jesus compared and equated His Authority as being the Authority of God
and that Authority was given to Him from God,
to the Authority in "the baptism of John."

Mark 11:27 "And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,

28 "And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things?
and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

29 "And Jesus answered and said unto them,
I will also ask of you one question, and answer me,
and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

30 "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 "And they reasoned with themselves, saying,
If we shall say, From heaven; he will say,
Why then did ye not believe him?

32 "But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people:
for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

33 "And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell.

"And Jesus answering saith unto them,
Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Jesus Christ called "the baptism of John", "the Counsel of God."

29 "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans,
justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

Luke 7:30; "But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves,
being not baptized of him.

Jesus walked 70 miles to be baptized by John the Baptist.

Matthew 3:13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John,
to be baptized of him.

Jesus said that for Him to be baptized by John the Baptist
fulfilled "all righteousness".

Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying,
I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now:
for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

The only appearance of The Triune Godhead
manifested together in the Bible
is at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist,

where the Holy Spirit witnessed to His approval of it
when John saw, "the Spirit of God" descended on Jesus "like a dove,
and lighting upon him"

and God the Father Personally voiced His approval of Jesus
having been baptized by John the Baptist, from Heaven itself,
"saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

John 3:15b; "Then he suffered him.

16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water:

"and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him,

and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove,
and lighting upon him:

17 "And lo a voice from heaven,
saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

I'm going to say as a Bible believer,
that I have to go with John's baptism being Christian baptism.

And as a Baptist here on the BB, who believes that John's baptism
has the Authority of the Triune Godhead,
I thought I'd shall a little bit about it.
...

 

[Alan Gross]

2. John was a Jewish priest and was only a “Baptist” because KJ translators didn’t want to say “John the Dipper” or “John the Immerser” since they supported sprinkling babies.

The word “baptism” was in regular use, well before the era of King James,
in the early 17th century.

"See this example of Acts 19, from John Wycliffe’s
14th century translation of the Bible into English.

Wycliffe's Bible;

Acts 19:3 "And he said, Therefore in what thing be ye baptized?
And they said, In the baptism of John.

4 "And Paul said, John baptized the people in the baptism of penance
(John baptized the people with a baptism for repentance),
and taught, that they should believe in him that was to coming after him
[and taught, that they should believe into him that was to come after him], that is, in Jesus."
etc.

See:
The King James’ use of “baptism,” instead of “immersion,”
was part of a long-standing tradition.
...

from:
BAPTISM IN THE KING JAMES VERSION
By Paul Kirkpatrick
(Compelling Proof That "Baptism"
Is Translated Correctly In The King James Bible).

"Etymology Of "Baptism".

Contrary to the opinions of those who maintain such a viewpoint
as mentioned above, the study of the etymology
of the words "baptism" and "to baptize"
reveals that neither of these words could have been invented
by the King James Version's translators,
but instead it shows that they have a long history of usage behind them.

"These words have their ultimate origin in the Greek language.

"Baptism" is derived from the noun baptisma, which means,
"a dipping in water."(2)

"It is found only in the Greek New Testament
and later ecclesiastical writings.(3)

"The verb "to baptize" comes from baptizein or baptizo(4)
(both of which are merely two conjugational forms of the same
Greek verb stem),(5)
both of which have the meaning "to dip, to immerse, submerge,"
and have been in existence from at least the time of Plato (c. 400 B.C.)

"...Although this faction did play an important role
in prompting the idea for a new Bible
(the result of which was the King James Version),
only four of the forty-seven translators were Puritans.(61)

"In the Translators Preface of the King James Version,
"The Translators to the Reader,"
which presently is seldom printed in the King James Version Bible,
they have this to say about the words "baptism" and "to baptize" in their work:

(d) We have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans
who leave the old ecclesiastical words,
as when they put washing for baptism....(62)

"From this statement by the translators themselves,
it is obvious that, if they had had the Puritan baptismal modes
of sprinkling or pouring in mind when they worked on
the King James Version, they would not have used the words
"baptism" or "to baptize" at all but would have used "washing" or "to wash" instead.

"They did not use the latter two because they wanted to employ the words that, to them, aptly expressed the Anglican concept of the mode of immersion
"baptism" and "to baptized".

Conclusions To Be Drawn.

'The evidence from etymology, from history, and from semantic reasoning, shows that the King James Version's translators
did not coin the words "baptism" and "to baptize"
as a deceptive front
to hide the practice of sprinkling or pouring for baptism.

"To say that they did is totally unsubstantiated charge because:

(1) These words already existed.

(2) The Church of England, of which practically all the translators were high officials, still practiced immersion when the King James Version was produced.

(3) If the translators had intended to convey the idea of baptismal modes other than immersion, they would not have used "baptism" and "to baptize"
when they translated the references to this ordinance anyway.

"It is hoped that this work will help to show the innocence of the translators of the King James Version to the charge that has been thoughtlessly thrown at them and to give the users of this version another reason for them to assert
that the King James Version is still the most reliable English translation available to the public today."
...

2. Ernest A. Klein, A Comprehensive
Etymological Dictionary of the English Language
(New York, 1966), I, 147.

3. Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek
-English Lexicon of the New Testament
(Marshallton, Del., n.d.), p. 94.

4. Klein, loc. cit.; and C.T. Onions and others,
The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
(New York, 1966), p. 74.

5. J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners
(New York, 1951), p 584.

61. Terence H. Brown, "The Learned Men," Which Bible?, ed.
David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1971) pp. 14-22.

62. Henry Barker, English Bible Versions (New York, 1907),
pp. 171-172.
...

3. The connections to groups, usually persecuted by the RCC is tenuous at best and includes some (Gnostic) that were clearly heretical.

You'd have to show me,

1.) "connections to groups,... is tenuous at best,

2.) includes some (Gnostic),

3.) that were clearly heretical.

 

[JonC]

You'd have to show me,

1.) "connections to groups,... is tenuous at best,

2.) includes some (Gnostic),

3.) that were clearly heretical.

That has been done.

All we know of the Paulicians is in the records of a handful of men spanning less than a century and ending around 720 AD.

Those accounts provide a few Baptist distinctives (especially regarding the RCC). But those same accounts, from different historians, also unanimously detail their dualistic belief, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, denying Jesus was man, and their rejection of the Old Testament and 1,2 Peter.

That is all we really know of the cult.

Ask your "historians" to provide actual direct sources to support their position. They can't.

 

[Alan Gross]

What we know is that before his conversion, Constantine was a Manichean and that after he was converted to Christianity and became the leader of the Paulicians, his lethal adversaries and those of Jesus Christ and His Word and churches have taken his prior beliefs in Manichaenism and brought them back into an attempt to associate them with him and blend them into painting he and the Paulicians with those type of heresies, as a pure convenience available to them, for the purpose of maligning, casting aspersions on, and persecuting Jesus Christ and His churches, him and the Paulicians, to this day, which any internet search will tell you, and there is nothing more to it than that.

Their enemies, which involved what was the state church and those of Jesus Christ are not above using any means to squash what they perceive as a threat to their secular power, influence, and "spiritual authority", including torturing and murdering of one hundred thousand Paulicians, for carrying out the Great Commission given to them, by their Lord.

"Armitage says that vast number of Catholics were converted.

"In fact the influence of the Paulicians was so strong that it created a war between Rome and Constantinople. The Eastern branch of Catholicism became convinced, for a time, that idol worship was sinful.

"In 726 Leo Isauricus, the Emperor, issued an edit prohibiting idolatry. The Roman Pontiff saw this as an attack upon his spiritual authority, and Catholic blood was shed.

"Unfortunately disorder was restored and the state church turned its swords again on the Paulicians.

"In 832 the Empress Theodora instituted an organized persecution which culminated in the deaths of more than one hundred thousand Paulicians in Armenia.

The Doctrines of the Paulicians were fully accepted by all Christians of like faith and order in their time and have been a great benefit and heritage to believers from that time, until the present.

However, in their experience, "The Catholics did everything in their power to eliminate the Paulicians and to destroy all their literature, but the people themselves prospered and spread."

"In other words, it refused to be destroyed despite all that Catholicism could do.

The effect of the Paulician doctrine was not stopped by the name-calling."

Before his conversion about Constantine:
"In Armenia, about the year 660 AD there was a young gnostic thinker named “Constantine.” He is not to be confused with the emperor with that name.

"The man was an heretic, a follower of the Persian prophet Mani, or Manes, the creator of “Manichaeism.” Manichaeism combined the religions of Zoroaster, and Gnosticism with bit of corrupted Christianity.

*It basically taught that in creation there is a battle between two equals – light and darkness; good and evil. It denies the deity of Christ, the omnipotence of Jehovah, the inerrancy of the Word of God and just about every other doctrine which we hold dear.

"This Constantine was a Manichean..."

Constantine's conversion to Christianity.
"In the year 660 Constantine sheltered a Christian who was fleeing Mohammedan captivity in Syria. In gratitude to his host, the man gave to Constantine a copy of the four gospels and the epistles of Paul.

"Gibbon, the author of “The Rise and Fall of Roman Empire” wrote: “These books became the measure of his studies and the rule of his faith; And the Catholics, who dispute his interpretation, acknowledge that his text was genuine and sincere.

"In the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, his faithful follower investigated the creed of the primitive Christianity, and whatever maybe the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit of the inquiry.”

"In essence, this secular historian with his Protestant background (Gibbon), says that Constantine went back to the original doctrines and practices of Biblical Christianity."

"Gibbon and others often used the word “reformer” when speaking about this Constantine, and in a sense this was true, but as the Lutheran historian Mosheim says, the churches which are identified with this man restored the pure apostolic doctrines and churches. He says that Constantine picked up the seeds of Bible Christianity which were planted in Armenia in the beginning of the Christian era.

"Because Constantine was becoming popular and powerful, teaching doctrines which undermined the growing Catholic doctrines and practices, both Rome and Constantinople began a counter-attack.

"And because Constantine had been a Manichean, that was the charge used against him..."

"J. M. Cramp wrote; “Manichaiesm was looked upon as a concentration of all that was outrageously bad in religious opinion, and it became the fashion to call ALL heretics Maniceans.

"Hence many excellent men have been so stigmatized whose views and practices accorded with the word of God.”
...

But regarding the Paulician faith - we know very little. We do know that they held a belief that was very similar to Manichaeism. But the dualistic faith of the Paulicians is present in several cults.

We do know that the Paulician were a cult that blended Christianity with a dualistic cult religion. But we do not know if it was Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, or another cult.

 

[Alan Gross]

We know that they rejected parts of the New Testament and the entire Old Testament of Scripture.

We know that they were a heretical sect.

"We" "know" nothing of the kind.

"I. K. Cross summarized his study of the Paulicians this way – They held tenaciously to the sacred writings. They were especially concerned with the writings of the apostle Paul, determined to build their churches upon his teachings, and their ministers tried to follow in his footsteps to the extent that they adopted the name of his followers as their own.

"They totally rejected all relics and image worship.

"They demanded a genuine experience of salvation before admitting any for baptism. This is what is commonly called today “believer’s baptism.”

"Their churches were independent and self-governing.

"They accepted only baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ordinances of the church, and baptized by dipping or immersion.

"They rebaptlzed those who came to them from other communions, identifying them in the eyes of their enemies as “anabaptists."

"They believed they were in succession from the churches of the apostles.

"They believed, and practiced, purity of church discipline, causing them to be called “cathari.” They brought their faith across Europe to the Reformation."

"William Whitsitt, was an heretic Southern Baptist Professor who advocated that the origin of Baptists and the revival of Baptist immersion in England came through John Smythe.

"He would not be expected to look with favor upon the Paulicians as a part of our Baptist heritage. Nevertheless professor Whitsitt, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, declared that the Waldenses joined the Catharists, and the Catharists were earlier called Paulicians, Alblgenses, etc ….

J.T. Christian tells us that “after the year 1000 the Paulicians began to make their appearance in England. In 1154 a body of Germans migrated into England, driven into exile by persecution. A portion of them settled in Oxford. William Newberry tells of the terrible punishment meted out to pastor Gerhard and his people.”

"Six years later another company of Paulicians entered Oxford, and he tells of some of the terrible punishment these people suffered.

"Then Jones declares, “This no doubt accounts for the Anabaptist teachings that kept appearing in England before the sixteenth century, as well as Baptist churches being found there prior to this century as well.”

"Goadby tell us that “passing under different names – Paulicians, Vaudois or Waldesnses, Abigenses, Berengarians, Arnoldists – these godly men kept alive some glimmer of light amongst all this darkness. About the eleventh century they rapidly multiplied on the Continent and in the following century came over to England in great numbers. So England heard the teachings of these people who kept alive the original faith during the dark ages.”

"Most of the true believers in Europe and their churches for the last thousand years have rarely been called “Paulicians.” They bore a variety of other names.

"But they apparently owe their doctrine to the people who were called “Paulicians” in Armenia and Thrace.

"In other words, some of God’s people in days gone by have been called “Paulicians.”

 

[JonC]

What we know is that before his conversion, Constantine was a Manichean and that after he was converted to Christianity and became the leader of the Paulicians, his lethal adversaries and those of Jesus Christ and His Word and churches have taken his prior beliefs in Manichaenism and brought them back into an attempt to associate them with him and blend them into painting he and the Paulicians with those type of heresies, as a pure convenience available to them, for the purpose of maligning, casting aspersions on, and persecuting Jesus Christ and His churches, him and the Paulicians, to this day, which any internet search will tell you, and there is nothing more to it than that.

Their enemies, which involved what was the state church and those of Jesus Christ are not above using any means to squash what they perceive as a threat to their secular power, influence, and "spiritual authority", including torturing and murdering of one hundred thousand Paulicians, for carrying out the Great Commission given to them, by their Lord.

"Armitage says that vast number of Catholics were converted.

"In fact the influence of the Paulicians was so strong that it created a war between Rome and Constantinople. The Eastern branch of Catholicism became convinced, for a time, that idol worship was sinful.

"In 726 Leo Isauricus, the Emperor, issued an edit prohibiting idolatry. The Roman Pontiff saw this as an attack upon his spiritual authority, and Catholic blood was shed.

"Unfortunately disorder was restored and the state church turned its swords again on the Paulicians.

"In 832 the Empress Theodora instituted an organized persecution which culminated in the deaths of more than one hundred thousand Paulicians in Armenia.

The Doctrines of the Paulicians were fully accepted by all Christians of like faith and order in their time and have been a great benefit and heritage to believers from that time, until the present.

However, in their experience, "The Catholics did everything in their power to eliminate the Paulicians and to destroy all their literature, but the people themselves prospered and spread."

"In other words, it refused to be destroyed despite all that Catholicism could do.

The effect of the Paulician doctrine was not stopped by the name-calling."

Before his conversion about Constantine:
"In Armenia, about the year 660 AD there was a young gnostic thinker named “Constantine.” He is not to be confused with the emperor with that name.

"The man was an heretic, a follower of the Persian prophet Mani, or Manes, the creator of “Manichaeism.” Manichaeism combined the religions of Zoroaster, and Gnosticism with bit of corrupted Christianity.

*It basically taught that in creation there is a battle between two equals – light and darkness; good and evil. It denies the deity of Christ, the omnipotence of Jehovah, the inerrancy of the Word of God and just about every other doctrine which we hold dear.

"This Constantine was a Manichean..."

Constantine's conversion to Christianity.
"In the year 660 Constantine sheltered a Christian who was fleeing Mohammedan captivity in Syria. In gratitude to his host, the man gave to Constantine a copy of the four gospels and the epistles of Paul.

"Gibbon, the author of “The Rise and Fall of Roman Empire” wrote: “These books became the measure of his studies and the rule of his faith; And the Catholics, who dispute his interpretation, acknowledge that his text was genuine and sincere.

"In the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, his faithful follower investigated the creed of the primitive Christianity, and whatever maybe the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit of the inquiry.”

"In essence, this secular historian with his Protestant background (Gibbon), says that Constantine went back to the original doctrines and practices of Biblical Christianity."

"Gibbon and others often used the word “reformer” when speaking about this Constantine, and in a sense this was true, but as the Lutheran historian Mosheim says, the churches which are identified with this man restored the pure apostolic doctrines and churches. He says that Constantine picked up the seeds of Bible Christianity which were planted in Armenia in the beginning of the Christian era.

"Because Constantine was becoming popular and powerful, teaching doctrines which undermined the growing Catholic doctrines and practices, both Rome and Constantinople began a counter-attack.

"And because Constantine had been a Manichean, that was the charge used against him..."

"J. M. Cramp wrote; “Manichaiesm was looked upon as a concentration of all that was outrageously bad in religious opinion, and it became the fashion to call ALL heretics Maniceans.

"Hence many excellent men have been so stigmatized whose views and practices accorded with the word of God.”
...

You mean Silvanus (Constantine-Silvanus).

Emperor Justinian II ordered the death of Silvanus and the Paulicians in 690.

Constantine-Silvanus was not a Manichean. The Paulicians did not hold Manichaeism. The Paulicians are often described by historians as holding neo-Manichaeism because of their dualism.



Anyway, enough said on the topic.

I have made my case and indicated the handful of 7th to 8th Century sources that provide what we actually know of the cult.

You have made your case and offered quotes from writers you trust.

People can read, research and decide for themselves.

No biggie for me (I believe the trail of blood starts and ends at Christ, not a line of congregations through history....so whether the Paulicians were Baptists like your denomination or not has no bearing on my position).

 

[canadyjd]

Thanks for asking.

It is an indispensable introductory treatment of the True History of True Christianity, ."

It is bad scholarship. It is bad theology. It is simply untrue and not necessary.

However, I see you are a true believer in landmarkism and are making your case in a polite manner. The information you are posting is interested by, but unconvincing.

Really, the only problem I have with your arguments is your use of terms like “indispensable” “true history” “true Christianity”.

That language smacks of cults throughout church history. Especially the Gnostics that claimed to have secret information only they could understand.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

The word “baptism” was in regular use, well before the era of King James,
in .

Without a doubt. They followed Jerome’s Vulgate, (about 400AD) which made up a Latin word for baptismo (Greek) instead of translating “immerse” or “dip” which is the regular Greek usage.

So, it evolved over the centuries to mainly mean sprinkling because the church sprinkled babies. Another way the KJV falls short of original intent of scripture.

peace to you

 

[Alan Gross]

So, it evolved over the centuries to mainly mean sprinkling because the church sprinkled babies. Another way the KJV falls short of original intent of scripture.

What a word evolves to mean over the centuries means nothing.

The word baptism means to immerse.

For example, the entire realm of Christianity today, to a man almost entirely without exception, will swear that they believe the word "church" in the Bible, which at that time expressed the meaning of a "local, summoned out, assembly of individuals, under rule in some organized fashion", can be changed to have the exact opposite meaning of, "world-wide, automatically a part of it when saved, individuals entirely scattered throughout the world, unorganized in every way'.

And this is the kicker: the condition of the souls of all these individuals who claim this new meaning for the word "church" to be a true fact, are susceptible to be influenced to believe in their heart and soul that this change in meaning can be applied to the Bible record, as if God Almighty had anything to do with that change in meaning in any way whatsoever.

They now believe, in our current age, that when the word "church" is used in the Bible, it is to be understood as talking about, "all saved people", more or less, either "all saved people on earth at any given time", or "all saved souls of all time and eternity in Heaven and on Earth".

As a result, although Jesus selected the word for "an assembly", from the four Greek words for assembly and chose the one which more specifically designs a ""local, summoned out, assembly of individuals, under rule in some organized fashion", to use in clearly determining the type of entity that He was Divinely Organizing and Instituting to be His witness in the New Testament Era Age of Churches, in the exact same way that the the Tabernacle and the Temple were Divinely Instituted by God in the Old Testament to be His assembled congregations of witnesses to Him, to worship Him acceptably, as He seemingly painstakingly stated precisely, to bring Him Glory,

by having men influenced to change the meaning of the "church" that He was initiating, from being "an assembly", to being, "a world-wide Kingdom", this is able to have the effect of completely impeaching and repudiating the idea Jesus was speaking of, and to make the impression upon the weak minds of men's carnal flesh that Jesus Originated and "built" what can then demonstrably be determined to be, "nothing".

Religious representatives of our time could fill volumes with their permissions and Pronouncements that for those who profess to be Christians to be allowed to gather together in their own little religious societies is O.K., but that when Jesus said, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", in Matthew 16:18, that Jesus was in fact saying in essence, "upon Myself, as the Chief Cornerstone and Rock of Ages, I am building "nothing".

Nothing new.

Men will tell you and the overwhelming mass majority of all Christians believe and know that, as the King of kings and Lord of lords, their King Jesus has the Rule and Reign over The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", more or less, either "all saved people on earth at any given time", or "all saved souls of all time and eternity in Heaven and on Earth".

Therefore, since by every indication, The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", more or less, either "all saved people on earth at any given time", or "all saved souls of all time and eternity in Heaven and on Earth", already existed, what Jesus said He built as a "church", and by applying it's newly obtained meaning given to it by men, as consisting of, "all saved people", more or less, either "all saved people on earth at any given time", or "all saved souls of all time and eternity in Heaven and on Earth", is in every sense of the new word definition saying that, "Jesus said He was going to "build", or continue to "build" and "grow", and "edify" nothing at all".

Nothing new.

The Kingdom of God is right there already, in front of God and everybody.

The current consensus of all Christianity, is that Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build nothing".

And that He has nothing to show for it, if He thinks He was building something other than what already existed.

As if, He was just making claim to all Christians being His and nothing more.

This would make, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen", in Ephesians 3:21, then becomes, "Unto him be glory in "nothing" other than the entire Kingdom of God by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

I Corinthians 12:28 becomes, "And God hath set some in "nothing" other than the entire Kingdom of God, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Acts 2:47 becomes, "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to "nothing" other than the entire Kingdom of God daily such as should be saved."

I Timothy 3:15 becomes, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is "nothing" of the living God other than the entire Kingdom of God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Get the picture?

con't

 

[Alan Gross]

Are you going to tell me that you, as a representative of all of Christianity that we know of today, believes that when Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", in Matthew 16:18,

that He was sharing with us that by, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", and that Jesus had in Mind something other than, "The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", more or less, either "all saved people on earth at any given time", or "all saved souls of all time and eternity in Heaven and on Earth"?

What do you believe about that?

That Jesus was promising to be with "all saved people"?

Is that what you believe and know in your heart He was saying, or what?

When the Bible talks about, "the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them", in Matthew 28:16, where it then says,

18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen",

that is could ever be possible, within the the Realms of Natural or Spiritual Reality that Jesus was speaking to the eleven as being constructed into any other capacity than participants and portions of, The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", more or less, either "all saved people on earth at any given time", or "all saved souls of all time and eternity in Heaven and on Earth"?

To say that Jesus was giving His instructions to something or anything other than, "The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", would be ludicrous when He said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Right?

That talking to every Christian and giving them their marching orders, obviously, right?

And in addition to that, the Promise He gave to them, "and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world", certainly can only be applicable to all of Christianity, as The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", right?

Then, in Acts 3:8, what Paul was said to be persecuting has to have been, "all of known Christianity, as The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", when it says, "And for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison".

After all, the Bible put it right there, when it says, "the".

"The" church has to be referring to, "all of known Christianity, as The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people".

You are exactly right.

There is no doubt about any of it.

The accounts by men agreeing with that are virtually without end.

And, to believe any different than that could cost you your life.

And those that killed you would think they were doing the Will of God.

There is just one miner hiccup located smack dab in the middle of all these convictions regarding the Revelation of God to Mankind and the instance of the word "church", as seen in the words of the Bible;

To say that the meaning of the word, "church", could ever be constructed as meaning, "The Kingdom of God, which includes "all saved people", more or less, either "all saved people on earth at any given time", or "all saved souls of all time and eternity in Heaven and on Earth", is purely the invention of men that God had and has absolutely nothing in Heaven or on Earth to do with, in any manner or regard whatsoever and is, again, the perfectly exact opposite of the meaning intended by God's Own Word.

Rather than rendering the word "church" to indicate nothing more than a nothing thing, with nothing of any significant existence, outside of meaning "all saved people are The Church", the word "church" as actually used in the Bible renders the the thinking and, therefore, their "religion" and their understanding of how God has instructed His children to obey, serve, and worship Him, as being nothing that can be said that He sanctions, accepts, or approves of.

Spiritual adultery is not received by God as worship of Him.

The very first tenant of genuine True Christianity, to surrender and bow to The Sovereignty of God, the Doctrine of the Supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the humble recognition of the Preeminence of Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords, has been abandoned, without the first notion of bringing any consideration of the subject matter into a position where individuals that comprise what is known Christianity, today, ask Him.

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46.

The witnesses God has raised up throughout the centuries that testify to the Truths of the Word of God,

from the hopeless condition of a lost man's soul to not be "luke warm", as well as to not "add to", or "take away" from His Word (which is the the lastest craze of man-made religion without God) etc.,

that are chronicled in the Trail of Blood, and to this moment, are simply a witness against you and all man-made religion.

The word, "church", did not "evolve" any more than "life comes a rock", or "a girl can become a boy and a boy can become a girl".

"Christianity", in recent times, however, has almost fully by and large
clearly and undeniably apostatized.

Luke 8:18; "I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh,
shall he find faith on the earth?"

 

[canadyjd]

So, you believe the “trail of blood” is a testimony against me and then you say “all man made religion”.

So, you have crossed the line into full blown cultist that believes unless I believe like you do, my religion is “man made” while your beliefs (based on the indispensable Trail of Blood that alone chronicles the “true history” of “True Christianity”, is the only true beliefs?

If that is what you believe, then just state it plainly.

peace to you