Paulicians: Early Baptists, Other Denomination, or...?

(Continued from Pilgrim Church by EH Broadbent)

This caused the primitive churches to lay great stress on the Lord's perfect humanity at His birth, showing that Mary, though the Lord's mother, cannot properly be called the mother of God, and to emphasise the importance of the baptism of Jesus, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and the voice from heaven declared:

"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".

In the many controversies as to the Divine and human nature of Christ, which after all efforts at explanation still remains a mystery, they used expressions which their adversaries construed as implying their disbelief in the Divinity of Christ before His baptism.

They seem, rather, to have held that His Divine attributes were not in exercise from His birth to His baptism. They taught that it was at His baptism, when 30 years old, that our Lord Jesus Christ received authority, the high-priesthood, the kingdom; then He was chosen and won lordship; it was then that He became the Saviour of sinners, was filled with the Godhead, ordained king of beings in heaven and on earth and under the earth, even as He Himself said in Matthew 28.18, "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and on earth".


These churches, carrying out the New Testament principles in a large measure, though no doubt in varying degree in different places, called by their adversaries Manichaeans, Paulicians, and other names, suffered for centuries with patience and without retaliation the dreadful wrongs inflicted on them.


During the reigns of the iconoclastic Byzantine Emperors they had a respite, but the extraordinary persecutions carried on by the Empress Theodora goaded some of them to desperation, so that they took up arms against their oppressors.


In pursuance of her cruel orders the Imperial executioners had impaled a man whose son, Carbeas, held high rank in the Imperial service.

On hearing this, Carbeas, in flaming indignation, renounced all allegiance to Byzantium; five thousand others joined him, and they established themselves at Tephrice, near Trebizond, which they fortified, and, in alliance with the Saracen - see glossary Caliph - see glossary , made it the centre of attacks on the Greek countries of Asia Minor. With this Mohammedan help they defeated the Emperor Michael, son of Theodora, captured the cities as far as Ephesus and destroyed the images they found there.

 

( continued from Pilgrim church by EH Broadbent)

Carbeas was succeeded by Chrysocheir, whose raids reached the western coast of Asia Minor and even threatened Constantinople. Ancyra, Ephesus, Nicaea, and Nicomedia were captured. In Ephesus horses were stabled in the cathedral, and the utmost contempt was shown for the pictures and relics, the building being considered as an idol temple.

The Emperor, Basil I, was obliged to sue for peace, but Chrysocheir refused any terms short of the abandonment of Asia by the Greeks. Basil, compelled to fight, surprised his enemy; Chrysocheir was killed and his army defeated.

The Byzantine army took Tephrice and scattered its inhabitants, who maintained themselves thereafter in the mountains.


As these revolted Paulicians saw on the one side the worshippers of images inflicting on them the most wicked oppression, and on the other the Mohammedans, free from any taint of idolatry, offering them liberty and help, it must have been difficult for them to judge which of the two systems was nearer to, or rather which was further from, the Divine revelation given in Christ.


The Mohammedans, however, were incapable of progress, for they entirely rejected the Scriptures, and, by placing themselves under bondage to the Koran, a book of human origin, were necessarily prevented from advancing beyond that to which its originator had himself attained.


The Greek and Roman Churches, though they had departed from the truth, yet retained the Scriptures, and thus there remained among them that which, by the Holy Spirit's power, was capable of bringing about revival.

In extracting some details of the history of these churches from the writings of their enemies, it cannot but be observed that these writings are so violent in abuse as to become manifest folly.

To found accusations upon them, therefore, is to put trust in untrustworthy evidence, whereas any good that they may admit is likely to be an unwilling acceptance of what could not be denied, especially as we find that this good is usually explained to have been based on some evil motive. T

he constant accusation of Manichaeism is not credible in the face of its equally constant denial by the accused, and by their consistent teaching of, and suffering for, the contrary doctrines of Scripture.

 

This I don't know.

I don't see this has the problem with deity, because it talks about only the human body of Christ.

We have to look at some more overview. Both Dr Cassidy and Broadbent interpretted that they were strong Trinitarians. Dr Cassidy would have read the Key in person, I think. You can ask and check with him.

No, I believe he as well as Dr Cassidy believe that they were misunderstood as Adoptionists because they believed that the Deity of Jesus didn't activate until His Baptism, even though He retained the Deity and all Divine nature. Both of them agree on this.

How come are the interpretations so different?

 

I think Both of the authors are the same in interpretting the portion as this:

(Paulicianis) used expressions which their adversaries construed as implying their disbelief in the Divinity of Christ before His baptism.

They seem, rather, to have held that His Divine attributes were not in exercise from His birth to His baptism.

I do not know which passage they refer to. I tried to send PM to Dr Cassidy, but noticed he refused any PM.

I hope I can check the original text personally soon.

 

CA,

We have to be careful in reading what is the beyond the translation by the people.
Even the Key was edited first of all, let alone the translation. I do not know in which era the Key was written, while Jesus told us the 2 witnesses are true.

All the time, RCC distorted what their dissidents said and believed.

For example, when RCC claimed that Paulicians worshipped God nakedly.
We should think what made RCC claim such, while no religion in the world practiced such worship so far. Will it be related to the Baptism by immersion? or did they misunderstand what Paulicians said about worshipping God as they were, without any pretense, to be enclothed with Christ.

Often RCC tried to accuse the True believers with the accusations that they were like Manicheans, Zoroastrians, or Arians. RCC is eager to accuse the True believers of ignoring Trinity etc.

Do you think Paulicians denied that Jesus is Son of God, which is so often mentioned in the Bible? Can we accept that Paulicians didn't believe God is in Jesus and Jesus is in God? Can we imagine that Paulicians didn't believe that Jesus was the Creator of Universe, which is mentioned in Colossians 1? Moreover the Bibles that they held may be equivalent to Syriac or Peshitta Aramaic, similar to KJV, not the MV's except, Revelation. KJV is clear about the deity of Jesus more than other versions. For example, 1 Tim 3:16 reads God was manifest in flesh.
If we read about their doctrines, Baptism by Immerion, Strong Faith before Baptism, Denial of Mother of God, Rejection of Idols and Images, Rejection of Infant Baptism, etc. We can see the soundness of their belief.

As for the birth of Jesus, we must understand that the explanation of such birth of humanity must have been very difficult at the time when the Life Science was not available, and they just refused the calling of Mother of God, then RCC as usual, must have said " You are denying the Deity of Jesus!" Then they must have said, the Deity was in Him, but it was not active until the Baptism. Divinity was just lurking in Him until the Divinity was activated by the Baptism.

In this era, do we know enough about the relationship and how Jesus was born?
Was the Ovum of Mary fertilized with the Word of God? or with the Holy Spirit?
How was Jesus enfleshed? If Jesus was created by the reaction between any part of Mary's body and the Holy Spirit, where was the previous person of Jesus who created the whole universe before? Where was the Jesus who met Abraham gone?

I am ordering the book, but it takes quite a lot as I don't find it in Canada.

Roman Catholic has accused all the others with the false accusations all the time. The more discovery of the books and the confessions by the dissident groups will exposes such claims to be lies

 

Maybe they can talk about the fullness of Holy Spirit as soon as Jesus came up out of the water.
As a whole, this must be interesting very much, and we may need to study a lot about this subject, and it seems to be quite worthwhile. In the meantime we cannot conclude in any direction yet.

I have a great sympathy with the nation Armenia, which were persecuted so much by Romans, Persians, Russians, Mongolians, Turkish, let alone the Turkish Genocide Masacre in 1915.

If any nation or group of religion stood firm on the Truth, they would have banished the heretics as the maximum penalty, Jesus never told the Believers should kill the heretics.

Abraham and Isaac dug the water wells, then Amalekites covered the wells, then they dug the wells again. True believers have dug out the true history and recovered the body of Christ properly, then the worldly religion persecuted them and covered the true history all the time, but again the True believers are digging up the ture history, and this will continue until the Lord comes.

 

I think it is a kind of Confession of Faith for the group of the people.
What is important in that case is that it shows much difference from what we heard thru so-called Orthodoxical history or from what RCC said about them.
I am sure that we cannot judge any group of the people without their own advocacy.
Bible teaches us this way for the Heretics:
After the first and the second admonition Reject! ( Titus 3:10)
Let both grow until the harvest... Gether ye together first the tares and bind thm in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn ( Mt 13:30)
As for the church members who committed sins, put away from among yourselves that wicked person ( 1 Cor 5:13).

Rebuke and stay away from the heretics - This is the teaching by the Bible.

However, RCC tortured the people by condemning them as Heretics, then killed them, and burnt all the writings and the records of their beliefs, then have blamed them with the accusations of what they have never believed.
Such has been the case with Donatists, Albigenes, Paulicians, Nestorians, etc.
RCC's accusations related with Trinity has been often connected with the victims rejection against Mother of God. RCC always charged such people as denying Deity of Jesus Christ.

Truth is
Mary was not and is not the Mother of God the Father.
Mary was not and is not the Mother of God the Holy Spirit.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son before the Creation of World.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son during the OT times after the Creation of the World until Jesus comes to the World.
Mary was not the Mother of Divinity of God the Son ( Godhead of God the Son was not generated by Mary)
Mary could not claim any motherhood for the Divinity of God the Son.
Mary was a creature of God the Son.( Colossians 1:14-20)
Mary was destined to go to the hell unless she was saved by the redemption of God the Son.
Mary needed a Savior because she was a sinner ( Luke 1:47)
Nobody in the Bible calls Mary Mother of God.
Nobody in the Bible calls Mary Mother of God the Son or Mother of Son of God.
In the Bible, God appears 3,640 times at least, more than 3,630 times it meant God the Father. The reason why RCC call Mary Mother of God is to give the people the impression that Mary is the Mother of all Godheads ( especially God the Father)

Heb 7:1-4 tells us about 2 persons: Melchisedec and Son of God. Explaining Melchisedec( Melchizedek), Bible says he had no father, no mother, no beginning of the days, no end of the life, but similar to Son of God. This tells us the 2 photographs of one person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There we can see how the Bible writer see and read " NO Mother" for both persons ( Melchisedec and Son of God)

Often RCC refer to Luke 1:43 when Elisabeth calls " Mother of my Lord", but we must remember Sarah called Abraham " Lord" ( 1 Peter 3:6).

Paulicians knew very well that the Mary worship of RCC originated from goddess worship and therefore they rejected it.

When they refused Theotokos, RCC charged them with the typical accusation that they denied the Deity of Jesus Christ.

 

I have ordered the Key, the problem is that it comes to me only in May.
Many things can be commented thereafter, though I am trying to have a look at it at Univ of Toronto, downtown campus in the meantime.

In case of the Christian religion, it is absolutely necessary for us to review their own records, especailly for the groups who refused the Idol Worship, Mary worship, who were persecuted by either Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox. They were more skilled in persecuting Christians.

Hostile witnesses are of no value in judging Christian believers. The persecution was not a Friendly Fire. There was their Father behind, which Bible teaches us. Tracing the true history is the great job for the believers.
If we do not learn from the history, the bitterness of the history, we will have to repeat the same history.

If you read Dr Cassidy's treatise, you would have found about 10 charges against them refuted by him, but he didn't link the Deity with the Mary worship.

But in the paper book of Pilgrim Church by Broadbent, he mentioned that Carbeas launched an expedition into Byzantine Empire by mobilizing 5,000 believers and occupied many cities and land, thereafter they made an ally with Saracens, and Chrysocheir succeeded Carbeas. In the meantime, Broadbent mentions that the extreme emphasis of Baptism to refuse the Mary worship resulted in the misunderstanding that Deity didn't exist in Jesus until Baptism. Apparently they emphasized the Baptism of Jesus, and they often baptized the people after they are grown up.
Boradbent may have found the sources from both of

{* "Die Paulikiamer im Byzantischen Kaiserreiche etc." Karapet TerMkrttschian Archidiakonus von Edschmiatzin
"The Key of Truth A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia" F. C. Conybeare.

Broadbent himself traveled to Middle East, Armenia, and to Central Asia which means Tashkent, Almaata , Tazykstan area and found many Christian heritages and ruins, Christian cemetery there.

Broadbent also mentioned this:


The absence of organization among them and of any earthly controlling centre, with the fact that they recognised the independence of each congregation, would lead to variety in the different churches. Then the characteristics of prominent leaders among them would also cause one generation to differ to some extent from another in spirituality or in the particular line of teaching emphasised.
But they all claimed to draw their doctrine from the Scripture and to continue the Apostolic tradition, and this claim must be allowed, since nothing sufficient can be urged against it , nor can the contrary be proved
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-044.HTM)


No central headquarter for the Paulicians, but they believed the local churches have the independence.

Even in the website of Pilgrim Church you can find the reactions between Byzantine church and Paulicians.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-045.HTM

 

Eliyahu,

They still do these same things. I see it happen constantly on discussion boards like this one. It is their "Modus Operendi"

They have to always...divert, divert, DIVERT. At all costs...divert.

Here is an organisation literally OVERFLOWING with heresy, paganism, falsehood, idolatry, goddess worship, unbiblical hiearchial caste systems, contradictions, etc etc etc. And yet at the drop of a hat, someone makes some simple statement like "Mary is not the mother of God" and IMMEDIETLY the hysterical charge goes out that we are, supposedly, DENYING THE DIETY OF CHRIST.

And they know full well that we do not deny Christs divinity. They know full well exactly what we mean when we say that...yet that doesnt matter in the least.

Its another opportunity to divert...divert...divert...divert...divert, ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

Its very frustrating when you are dealing with people so well schooled in all of these diversionary tactics and foolish manipulations. And its not just trained apologists who frequent boards like this one, many times masquarading as non-catholics.

I see priests resort to these tactics regularly on EWTN.

Mike