Early Christian Martyrs

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by LadyEagle, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Melanie

    Melanie
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,779
    Likes Received:
    5
    There is also the Roman Catholic martyrology that remembers lists of martyrs every day of the calender....it is devastating to read the torments made on these folk by fellow human beings.....................the question being could you follow them if you were asked to deny Christ or blaspheme Him at the cost of your life............

    I hope I would be granted the grace of fortitude ......but the thought is terrifying
     
  3. angelfire

    angelfire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    early Xtn martyrs

    I have the same trepidations ---BUT if you believe the PRE-trib rapture , you wont have a thing to wory about
    in Christ
    angelfire
     
  4. jilphn1022

    jilphn1022
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,273
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have the promise

    from the Lord that He will be with us until the end. That is something that we all can cling to because God keeps His promise!
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    // ... could you follow them if you were asked
    to deny Christ or blaspheme Him at the cost
    of your life ... ? //

    I've read a lot of these books/sites/etc.
    so know a lot about martyrdom.

    If you deny Christ or Blaspheme Him
    -- you may die for Him anyway. It has
    happened. So here is the most likely
    secenario that may happen to you:
    you are picked up in the middle of the
    night. After three days torture you
    deny Christ. You are killed and go to
    heaven. IMHO: if you believe that scenario
    is NOT possible - you missed something
    in reading the Bible.

    Matthew 24:13 (Tyndale Bible, c1523):
    13 But he that endureth to the ende
    the same shalbe safe.

    Logic of the form:
    ONE: If you endure to the end;
    then you shall be saved.


    It is TRUE - that is what the scripture
    says.
    Logically, the following statement
    made from statement ONE must
    be proved seperately:
    (feel free to use the Bible if you think
    it true. I think it false:)

    TWO: If you endure NOT to the end
    then you shall NOT be saved.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Sister Jilphn -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:
     
  7. bound

    bound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed?! Am I misunderstanding something here? Are you saying you think the Bible is false or are you saying you believe the primise of assertion is fales?
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible is always true.
    I've rewritten my post, see if this makes more sense.
    I have yet to search the Bible throughout to see
    if the following is true (and provable by the Bible):

    TWO: If you endure NOT to the end
    then you shall NOT be saved.

    The proof that statement (if it is true)
    has to come from somewhere
    else than Matthew 24:13.

    --------------------------------

    Matthew 24:13 (KJV1873):

    But he that shall endure unto
    the end, the same shall be saved.

    This statement is true:
    IF he endures to the end;
    THEN he shall be saved.


    Logic Dictates that this statement is
    also correct because the first one was:

    If he is not saved;
    Then He did not endure to the end.


    There are two statements that come from
    this that are independant of the first
    statement (I didn't say they were true or
    false); I leave it up to the reader to
    prove one of them true from the Bible.
    If one is true, both are true [by the rules
    of Logic] ):

    TWO:
    IF he endures NOT to the end;
    THEN he shall NOT be saved.


    IF he is saved;
    THEN he endures to the end.


    Matthew 24:13 does NOT support the
    truth of these last two propositions.
    Some people think it does, but they
    are wrong.

    -------------------------------
    An example where the second set of propositions
    are not true, even though the original set
    of propositions is true.

    First set of propositions (True)

    If you smoke;
    then you will die prematurly.


    If you die NOT prematurely;
    then you did NOT smoke.

    Second set of propositions (False)

    If you do not smoke; then you will not die prematurely
    [it is false, you could die from a fall while
    cleaning your gutters]

    If you die prematurely; then you smoked.
    [it is false, perchane you die prematurely cause
    you got lung cancer from polution]
    (remember it takes only one case to prove
    something false, it takes all cases to prove someting
    true)
     
  9. jniles

    jniles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could it possibly be that this verse you quoted:

    Matthew 24:13 (KJV1873):

    But he that shall endure unto
    the end, the same shall be saved.

    is not on church ground?

    Is it possible it is on tribulation ground?

    Just wondering,

    Later,

    John
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO Matthew 24:4-14 describes the church age (AKA: 'last days' in Acts 2:17).

    I also believe that one of the Gifts of the Spirit is the gift of martyrdom.
     
  11. DocTrinsoGrace

    DocTrinsoGrace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 24 doesn't appear to have a single focus. Thus, instead of citing a single period of time, it appears to be looking from the time of Christ through to the consummation of glory. I am insufficiently studied to specifically cite where transitions occur, but at least some of Christ's statements from 4 onward relate to the judgement brought on my forefathers in 70 AD. The prophecy mongering movies and books do not seem to rightly handle that time when my forefathers saw the "Abomination of Desolation" etc. Regardless, my eschatology is probably not very robust anyway.

    Since martyrdom is not mentioned in the passages on the gifts of the Spirit, perhaps it would making too fine a point by putting it in that list -- had the Holy Spirit intended it there, it would have been in those passages. (Which are they, 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, I think, are where the lists occur.) Certainly, by God's providence, some will be martyred and others will die other ways. Fox's book of Martyrs makes the good and Biblical point, that God's grace is sufficient even unto martyrdom. Nevertheless, the martyrs of the church are, indeed, gifts of Christ to the Father.
     
  12. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    I listened to a video on the Internet about the martyr William Tyndale last night. The said in the 4th &15th century the Catholic church would burn at the stake anyone who read the bible in English. They said a man was burned that recited the Lords Prayer in English to his children. We must never forget the GREAT men who laid their lives down for us today to have God's word. The RCC killed many who tried to wrestle the word away from the clergy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. DocTrinsoGrace

    DocTrinsoGrace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I have been a man of great sins, but He has been a God of great mercies; and now, through His mercies, I have a conscience as sound and quiet as if I had never sinned... The Lord knows I go on this ladder [the scaffold upon which he was to be hung] with less fear and perturbation of mind, than ever I entered the pulpit to preach." --Donald Cargill (27 July 1681)
     
  14. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not everything posted on the internet is accurate. People were never 'burned at the stake' for reading the bible in the vernacular.

    The Church prohibited translation without authorization, that's all. Another accusation is that the Church thought it important that the Bible was widely available in Latin, but most people couldn't read Latin. That's true, but it's also misleading: most people couldn't read Latin, because most people couldn't read! In Europe at the time, those who could read, could read Latin; so the idea that Latin somehow made the Bible inaccessible is Protestant mythology foisted on the ignorant.

    This is especially true given that books were hideously expensive until the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, so the only way anyone could afford to own a Bible would be if they were rich -- in which case they were educated, which meant (even as late as the twentieth century) they could read Latin.
     
  15. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    BTW, the Protestant myth that the Church did everything they could to keep the bible out of the hands of the laity doesn't hold water.
    This seems to be another made-up story gleaned from fringe anti-catholic web sites.

    PS Here are some pre-reformation bible translations

    Papal Missionaries Cyril and Methodius translated the bible into Slavonic in the 10th Century.

    Charlemagne (Karl der Große) would foster Frankish (Germanic) biblical translations in the 9th century. Over the years, prior to the appearance of the first printed German Bible in 1466, various German and German dialect translations of the Scriptures were published. The Augsburger Bibel of 1350 was a complete New Testament, while the Wenzel Bible (1389) contained the Old Testament in German.
    First Printed Bible in German (1466)
    Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg's invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther's new translation in 1522.five complete folio editions printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German (Dutch)
    The first complete printed Bible for Catholics in Holland was printed at Delft in 1475. Bible minus the Psalms , complete (1477)

    French
    Versions of the Psalms and the Apocalypse, and a metrical rendering of the Book of Kings, appeared as early as the seventh century. Up to the fourteenth century, many Bible histories were produced. A complete version of the Bible was made in the thirteenth century. The fourteenth century manuscript Anglo-Norman Bible follows it closely. Independent of either in the manuscript Bible of King John the Good, which was described as a "work of science and good taste". Done in the second half of the fourteenth century, it is largely the work of the Dominicans Jean de Sy, Jehan Nicolas, William Vivien, and Jehan de Chambly. Another version based on the thirteenth-century Bible was the work of Raoul de Presles and is known as the Bible of Charles V.

    Italian
    A complete version in the vernacular, a manuscript preserved in the National Library at Paris, was made by Nicholas de Nardo, O.P., in 1472. The first printed Bible (Venice, 1471) was due to Nicholas Malermi, O. Camald. A revision of this, with notes, rubrics, and résumés largely after the Biblical commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra, was made by Marine de Veneto, O.P. (Venice, 1477).
    Spanish
    Several manuscripts of early Spanish versions, e.g. the Biblia Alfonsina, and some made from the Hebrew, are preserved at the Escurial, Madrid.
    The first printed Bible (Valencia, 1478), following an Old-Testament version from the French and Latin by Romeu de Sabruguera, O.P., was in the Catalonian dialect and was the work of the General of the Carthusians, Boniface Ferrer (d. 1417), a brother of St. Vincent Ferrer, O.P
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Angelique Goldor

    Angelique Goldor
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate discussions on various martyrs, Saints, apologetics, and other subjects associated with those aforementioned. Now I have to admit, I come with an air of bias because I was born, raised, and confirmed in the Catholic Church. I appreciate Church teachings to a very devout amount; and its histories. So with that said, I checked out the first couple paragraphs from Chapter One in the link (I might read more when I get the chance to) and I think I've found more questions than answers in this regard. Like when did Herod Antipaas loose his seat? I am a stickler for dates and I am not sure it makes historical sense to date James the Great's beheading to 44 A.D. Any thoughts?
     
  17. Camery

    Camery
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we are to learn anything, let it be that we are learning how to live, not to die, so in this sense I don't believe Martyrdom is a gift. It could be a sacrifice for our Lord in which is one of the greatest things we can do. There have been those whose appointment with death was by Martyrdom. The apostle Peter was one. Never the less a divine appointment is for the maintenance of a position which is not the same as gifts.
     
  18. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes Received:
    454
    From the Constitutions of Arundel, 1409.
    [Thomas Arundel being Archbishop of Canterbury at the Time]
    Article 7. It is a dangerous thing to translate the text of holy scripture out of the tongue into another........We therefore decree and ordain that no man hereafter, by his own authority translate any text of the scripture into English.....and that no man read any such.....lately set forth in the time of John Wickliffe.......He that shall do contrary....shall be punished.

    Article 8. We expressly forbid that any person propose any proposition.....repugnant to the catholic faith.....any man convicted shall incur the sentence of greater excommunication.

    Article 9. .....No person .....shall dispute upon.....the decrees of councils....or teach contrary to....the adoration of the holy cross, the worshipping of images, going on pilgrimage....or relics of the saints......Contrary to this, whosoever doth preach shall be pronounced heretic....in all effect of the law.

    If anyone is wondering what punishment might be inflicted on those translating, propagating or reading the Scriptures in English, in January 1401 the law De Haeritico Comburendo, 'Concerning the Burning of Heretics,' was passed at Arundel's behest, nor was it allowed to lie dormant for long. On February 12th, 1401, William Sawtrey, a converted Roman priest, became the first English Protestant martyr. He was by no means the last.
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    Walter, I think you are too glibly repeating Catholic talking points.

    The example of Cyril and Methodius, for example, leaves out a good deal. They were not "papal missionaries" before Cyril's death, and poor Methodius endured abuse by the German bishops (who even threw him into prison) for using Slavonic in the Mass. He was on a see-saw that sometimes saw him encouraged by the bishop of Rome and sometimes condemned.

    Now, I do not think that a reading of history will show that the Roman church forbade translations into the vernacular (as you have pointed out), it is also true that the church did not consider it advantageous that such translations be distributed willy-nilly to the laity. Even vernaculars, before the Reformation, were intended for a small audience, most of whom would have been clergy or the aristocracy (primarily the court).

    And I would disagree that Bibles were "hideously expensive" before the Industrial Revolution. Yes, they were expensive, but not above the means of tradesmen, as shown by Bunyan's possession of a Geneva Bible. And portions printed on cheap paper would be even less expensive and thus available to people of more modest means.

    What really is the dividing line is the question of who should be allowed access to the scriptures. For better or ill, the Protestant view was that the scriptures should be made available widely (really, universally). And we Protestants should remember that the pre-Trent Roman church allowed much more variability on such questions than the post-Trent church would.

    Forgive me, but I want to quote, at length, Thomas More, who in his Dialogue Concerning Heresies laid out what I think is an accurate view of traditional Roman understanding of the use of scripture by the laity (and I think we can agree that More was no opponent of a proper translation into the vernacular):

    " ... now since the veil of the Temple is broken broken asunder that divided among the Jews... the people from the sight of the secrets, and that God had sent his Holy Spirit to be assistant with his whole Church to teach all necessary truth; though it may therefore be the better suffered that no part of Holy Scripture were kept out of honest laymen’s hands—yet would I that no part thereof should come in theirs which to their own harm and haply their neighbors’ too... would handle it over-homely... a nd be too bold and busy therewith.
    And also, though Holy Scripture be, as ye said while ere, a medicine for him that is sick... and food for him that is whole: yet, since there is many a body sore soul-sick that taketh himself for whole; and in Holy Scripture is a whole feast of so much diverse viand... that, after the affection and state of sundry stom achs, one may take harm by the selfsame that shall do another good; and sick folk often have such a corrupt tallage in their taste that they most like the meat that is most unwholesome for them—it were not, therefore, as methinketh, unreasonable that the ordinary (whom God hath in the diocese appointed for the chief physician... to discern between the whole and the sick, and between disease and disease, should, after his wisdom and discretion, appoint everybody their part... as
    he should perceive to be good and wholesome for them. And therefore,as he should not fail to find many a man to whom he might commit all the whole: so, to say the truth, I can see no harm therein
    though he should commit unto some man the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, or Luke... whom he should yet forbid the Gospel of Saint John; and suffer some to read the Acts of the Apostles... whom he would not suffer to meddle with the Apocalypse. Many were there, I think, that should take much profit by Saint Paul’s epistle ad Ephesios ... wherein he giveth good counsel to every kind of people... and yet should find little fruit for their understanding in his The Epistle to the Romans epistle ad Romanos
    ... containing such containeth high difficulties, high difficulties as very few learned men can very well attain. ..."

    "So that, as I say, though the bishop might unto some layman betake and commit, with good advice and instruction, the whole Bible to read, yet might he to some man well and with reason restrain the reading of some part; and from some busybody, the meddling with any part at all... more than he shall hear in sermons set out and declared unto him; and in like wise, too, take the Bible away from such folk again... as be proved by their blind presumption to abuse the occasion of their profit unto their own hurt and harm. And thus may the bishop order the Scripture in our hands... with as good reason as the father doth by his discretion appoint which of his children may, for his sadness, keep a knife to cut his meat... and which shall for his wantonness have his knife taken from him, for cutting off his fingers. And thus am I bold, without prejudice of other men’s judgment, to show you my mind in this matter: how the Scripture might without great peril, and not without great profit, be brought into our tongue and
    taken to lay men and women both — not yet meaning thereby but that the whole Bible might, for my mind, be suffered to be spread abroad in English."

    And I will acknowledge that the modern Roman church has not attempted to keep the scriptures from the laity (as if this could be done). What puzzles me is how the church can accommodate various translations, none of which are fully acceptable in the new liturgy. I understand this from Protestants, but not from the Roman church.
     

Share This Page

Loading...