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.
Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, Mar 6, 2009.
Page 6 of 13
-
Hi DHK,
Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.
Thanks.
CA -
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Can you be more specific?
-
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
Please cite your primary sources for your belief that the Albigenses of the 13th century were Bible-believing Christians.
Thank you.
CA -
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? -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
The Paulicans, Bogomils, Albergensians all held to a dual divinity a "god" of the spirit world and an evil "god" of the material world. Albergensians theological decent from the Cathars who believed that this world was hell and that the "god" of the tanakh or the OT was evil. Definately not baptist. What similarities there are is a rejection of the Sacraments, the Papacy, and veneration of Mary. These are some sources:
Moore's The Origins of European Dissent, Un traite neo-manicheen du XIIIe siecle: Le Liber de duobus principiis, suivi d'un fragment de rituel Cathare
Massacre at Montsegur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade, Zoe Oldenbourg
Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity", p251
http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/congress/ -
-
-
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
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 -
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. -
Read it here:
http://www.lifelineprinting.com/hislop_alexander_two_babylons.htm?gclid=CLKQzuaKi5oCFRFWagod1xZuLA
I am sure that first hand sources were used. -
What is your definition of primary sources?
Thanks.
Greg -
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.)
Page 6 of 13