Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

When the 3000 were converted, IIRC, they were still using the synagogues.
And I believe that was a temporary situation. When that many people got converted, of course, the meetings would be that big. But there is no evidence it stayed that way. They then most likely broke up into small groups in people's homes. Hence, so called "megachurches" and large liturgical bodies alike, (which need so much organization, which requires more money and resources to run) are looking at the wrong things when using this scene in Acts as their model of church fellowship.

Still, it is not right to go picking out just any ol' groups to fill in the "gaps", and solely on the basis that they stood out from the Catholics and were persecuted, and then go on and vehemently deny that they were aberrant against all the historical evidence. Sorry, but not all of those named groups tossed around measure up to NT doctrine, as the groups claiming them even hold. "Groups" can be as small as "two or three" (Matt. 18:20). It does not have to be an organized sect, but that's what people tend to look for.

 

Hi DHK,

Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

Thanks.

CA

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's outright fiction, but it's not good history.

The sad part is that so many of the things he talks about in ToB are based on truth, but he presents them in such an inaccurate way.

 

Can you be more specific?

 

Honestly? No. I'm not trying to be glib or stiff-arm you, it's just been so long since I've read it.

 

There is plenty of history around to tell you of the Albigenses and groups similar to them. But you won't accept it.
I believe you hold to a double standard, a hypocritical one. Let me demonstrate:

Who discovered America?
Was it Columbus, who "in 1492 Columbus sailed the blue"?
Or was it long before that?
Was it some Norwegians and possibly Icelanders?
Possibly men like Eric the Red?
There is good evidence that these Norwegians discovered America long before Columbus ever reached North America.
However, do you have any first hand evidence for it. Can you provide it? No. You just take the word of a school text-book that it was so. You have no first hand evidence whatsoever, and probably couldn't find any if you tried. You have a double standard. You don't demand first hand evidence in one area, but you do in another area of history. That is hypocrisy.

 

The Orchard quote you previously cited is not a primary source. (And, regardless, the quote did not reference the Albigenses.)

You have yet to provide any primary sources for me to accept, or reject. Historians, whether reporting on the Ambigenses or America, refer to primary source documents. (Sidebar. I don't recall participating in any discussion about the discovery of America.)

Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.

Thank you.

CA

 

Here is a quote from J.T. Christian's "A History of the Baptists."

Most of their beliefs were not unlike most Baptists today.

The same information can be gleaned from almost any Baptist History text.

Armitage's "A History of the Baptists" in two volumes, is one of the better references. There are many books on Baptist History. These resources are much better than the discredited Catholic sources that many others often run to.



The reference to the discovery of America was an example of how a double standard is adhered to. In other areas of history you won't demand a "primary source." But you do here. There are many things we believe that we have no primary source available to us. The primary sources are often locked up in museums, available only to a very few. So why are you so demanding here?

 

All of the above are secondary sources. CA asked for primary sources, and gave a very helpful link to a definition of the latter; did you not read it?

So, the question remains: please cite the primary sources in support of your contention that the Albigenses-Cathars were evangelical Christians, without setting off on a tangential trek as to which European may nor may not have discovered America.

 

You hold a double standard just like others do. You want me to produce a primary source (or so it seems). That is what Matt and CA are demanding, but you can't produce one yourself. Your source comes from May 2009, and the information in it is not all correct. Why should I believe your information over the information I have already posted?

 

Then you provide primary sources for those groups of believers that are hidden in antiquity.

 

If his source comes from May 2009, this guy is really good. I would tend to believe it.

 

DHK,

As requested.

At one time the primary sources may have not been readily available, or "hidden in antiquity;" however, that is not true today:

An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies

A Description of Cathars and Waldenses by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay

The Catharist Rituals

Please cite your primary sources. Those that support your belief that the Albigenses were Bible believing Christians.

Thank you.

CA

 

Those are not primary sources IMO. They are no better than J.T. Christian's, "A History of the Baptists," not Armitage's "Baptist History." The books you recommend simply quote from ancient sources as do Armitage and Christian. There is no difference. If you want to pick up a copy of Christian's book, and follow all the documentation you will find your primary sources. Not everything is found on the internet. I have both Armitage and Christian in my library and I am content with that. I also have some other Baptist History books attesting to the same information that I have previously written.

FYI, I looked in the World Book Encyclopedia. The information there called them heretics. At the end of the article it referred one to Catholic sources. Obviously the article was biased from the beginning.

 

An Exposure of the heresies of the Catholic Church.
Read it here:

http://www.lifelineprinting.com/hislop_alexander_two_babylons.htm?gclid=CLKQzuaKi5oCFRFWagod1xZuLA

I am sure that first hand sources were used.

 

Before we look at the JT Christian and Armitage references to the Albigensians it would be helpful for me to know what you mean by the phrase "primary sources."

What is your definition of primary sources?

Thanks.

Greg

 

Let's take an example. Near the beginning of chapter five of his book, look at this quote:

I am not sure who Jones is; a Baptist historian I presume.
However, it cannot be denied that the second source that I bolded is a primary source, a source that quotes from the actual writings of the Albigenses (Cathari) themselves. How close to the original source can one get.
What can one say about Schaff-Herzog, except that he has a great reputation as being a reliable historian, although this would not be a "primary source."


Is this what you are looking for?
Since Schaff-Herzog's works are still available one could inevtitably go to his works and find out where he got the information from. I am sure it can be traced if one wants to take the time and trouble to do that. But Christian gives enough quotes that are close enough to the approximate date of the Albigenses or are straight from the "mouth" of the Albigeneses to be considered primary.

 

DHK,

RE The Cathari themselves boasted of their remote antiquity (Bonacursus, Vitae haereticorum... Cathorum, ap. D’Archery, Scriptorum Spicilegiam, I. 208).

I wonder about your characterization of this quote as an example of a primary source. The author (Christian, or Armitage?) does not quote "from the actual writings of the Albigenses (Cathari) themselves." He summarizes what he believes Bonacursus wrote in "Vitae haereticorum...," but does not allow Bonacursus to speak for himself.

The author referenced a primary source; however, he presented it as a secondary source. Rather than quoting "Vitae haereticorum..." at length and letting the reader decide the meaning of the text; the author offered no quote from Bonacursus, and gave only his own analysis and interpretation.

How to Distinguish Between Primary and Secondary Sources

Please clarify the basis upon which you consider the above a primary source.

Thank you.

CA

(Sidebar. In Bonacursus, "Vitae haereticorum..." I don't see any mention of the Cathari themselves boasting of their remote antiquity.)