FB automatic translations ...

Names omitted!

Swedish original, which I had to click specially to see:

Hej G. !

Läser att du har en högtidsdag i dag, varför jag önskar få GRATULERA i förhoppning om att de blir många många fler !

Bästa hälsningar, D.B.

French translation, automatically shown:

Bonjour G. !

En train de lire que vous avez une journée de congé aujourd'hui, pourquoi je tiens à vous féliciter dans l'espoir qu'il y en aura beaucoup d'autres !

Meilleurs vœux, D.B.

What does "högtidsdag" mean? It means a "day of celebration" - in this case a birthday.

What does "journée de congé" mean? It means "a day off" ... in fact the man was too old to be still at work./HGL

DT reattacks the Eucharist

Accusations à la Hochhuth's The Deputy · Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades · DT reattacks the Eucharist

I publish

in a new subthread, the link to previous, and later do excuses for the quality in the first hours of publication.

But the interesting thing is, DT is very keen on re-pretending the Eucharist is unbiblical:

DT

Hans-George Lundahl,
1. Christ didn't correct those who objected to his "you must eat my flesh" message either because they needed to chew off at least a finger or because (as scripture says) he knew what was in man".

I think the evidence heavy on the side of " he knew...".

No one ever actually ate any of his flesh...despite being told they must! No one ever claimed to until many years after his crucifixion. "They needed to eat some of him" is ridicoulous!

2. Communication is a two way street Mr. High & Mighty Sr.

3. If the disciples who left Jeshua were right in thinking that he taught that they would be needing to ACTUALLY eat his flesh why do we not read of anyone doing so?

Christ himself called the cup "this fruit of the vine" AFTER declaring it was the NT in his blood, so they didn't drink actual blood! Your claims contradict scripture!

4. The RCC agrees that the OT ceremonies were representative of spiritual realities but deny that the paschal cup & bread are because their fake transubstantiation is meaningless if they admit it! They were long representative parts of the paschal meal, what ground is there to claim anything different when Christ declared that they should be partaken of in REMEMBRANCE of his crucifixion?

None!

If your claim were true then man could forgo repenting, forgo living righteuosnesly and forgo believing in Christ and merely eat a wafer to be saved!

(Because your church demands literal eating of flesh AND drinking of his blood but doesn't even give the cup except to "priests"! Claiming the blood is in the bread ...even though Christ gave the bread AND the cup!) So, eat the wafer &:you are a "partaker of Christ"!

Ridiculous! (& refuted by scripture!)

That voodoo keeps looking like more & more DOODOO all the time!

Ridiculous fable piled on previous ridiculous fable! How can a seemingly intelligent man like you "buy" that malarky???

WHY would you buy that instead of biblical doctrine?

Partaking of Christ is a SPIRITUAL requirement and reality, not a physical one!

Christ died ONCE then sat down...waiting now for his enemies to be made his footstool.

His sacrafice does not need to be repeated and the claimed "making it present" repeat via the Mass makes a mockery of "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice".

C'mon Hans you are smarter than that!

Hans Georg Lundahl

DT, //1. Christ didn't correct those who objected to his "you must eat my flesh" message either because they needed to chew off at least a finger or because (as scripture says) he knew what was in man". //

// I think the evidence heavy on the side of " he knew...". //

// No one ever actually ate any of his flesh...despite being told they must! No one ever claimed to until many years after his crucifixion. "They needed to eat some of him" is ridicoulous! //

Correction on the Catholic theology : no Catholic thinks we need to eat OF Christ's flesh. All of it is present in each small piece of what can be perceived as bread.

You are, like those Jews, adding a notion of cannibalism.

Whatever Christ knew, He was at that point communicating and giving some a last chance.

// 2. Communication is a two way street Mr. High & Mighty Sr. //

Certainly. But in this case, on your view, a metaphor had been mistaken for a literal thing, and in cases of mistake, one would normally try to correct them.

// 3. If the disciples who left Jeshua were right in thinking that he taught that they would be needing to ACTUALLY eat his flesh why do we not read of anyone doing so? //

In Corinthians 11 we see St. Paul talking of actually doing so.

// Christ himself called the cup "this fruit of the vine" AFTER declaring it was the NT in his blood, so they didn't drink actual blood! Your claims contradict scripture! //

You seem to be referring to the account by St. Matthew, on which Challoner commented:

[29] "Fruit of the vine": These words, by the account of St. Luke 26: 22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.

Objection dismissed.

// 4. The RCC agrees that the OT ceremonies were representative of spiritual realities but deny that the paschal cup & bread are //

We deny that the paschal cup and bread Christ began with are identic to the sacrament of the New Covenant.

See Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Get it - of the New Testament!

// because their fake transubstantiation is meaningless if they admit it! //

What we do not admit is Christ both starting and ending with only a Jewish paschal meal. He started with one and added a new sacrament from two materials in it.

// They were long representative parts of the paschal meal, //

Of the Old Testament, which commemorated the Exodus from Egypt, which was a shadow of what Christ was to accomplish.

// what ground is there to claim anything different when Christ declared that they should be partaken of in REMEMBRANCE of his crucifixion? //

The very idea of remembering the Crucifixion places His institution outside the immediate context of the OT Seder.

Remembrance does not exclude what is being remembered also being there.

// If your claim were true then man could forgo repenting, forgo living righteuosnesly and forgo believing in Christ and merely eat a wafer to be saved! //

No, since someone who took of the sacrament without repentance of sins known, and without the intent of living righteously and without belief, would make himself CULPABLE of the Body and Blood of Christ. The sacrament he would take would be a true sacrament, but it would not save him any more than touching Christ saved those who hammered the nails in His hands.

// Because your church demands literal eating of flesh AND drinking of his blood but doesn't even give the cup except to "priests"! Claiming the blood is in the bread ...even though Christ gave the bread AND the cup! //

In the crucifixion, Christ's Blood was separated from His Body. In His heavenly glory, His Blood flows in His Body. This means, anyone who communicates under one species only, partakes of both Body and Blood, because we partake of the risen Christ. But in the Consecration, His death is shown forth.

The twelve to whom He gave the cup were all the first bishops of the Catholic Church, that is, its highest clergy (there is a dispute if Judas was still in the room when this happened, so, twelve or eleven).

// So, eat the wafer &:you are a "partaker of Christ"! //

Partaker if believing and repenting of any sins known, robber if unbeliever or unrepentant.

// That voodoo keeps looking like more & more DOODOO all the time! //

Sorry, but namecalling won't cut it.

// Ridiculous fable piled on previous ridiculous fable! How can a seemingly intelligent man like you "buy" that malarky??? //

Sorry, but namecalling won't cut it.

// WHY would you buy that instead of biblical doctrine? //

I am not buying your parodies of Catholic doctrine, but I am buying Catholic doctrine, since it is Biblical.

// Partaking of Christ is a SPIRITUAL requirement and reality, not a physical one! //

The requirement is both spiritual and physical. The reality also.

// Christ died ONCE then sat down...waiting now for his enemies to be made his footstool. //

Even so, His death is made present on our altars.

// His sacrafice does not need to be repeated and the claimed "making it present" repeat via the Mass makes a mockery of "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice". //

Where in the Bible do you find the words "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice"?

It's your interpretation of what the Bible says, not its actual words.

And unlike yours, the Catholic one was around in St. Ambrose, around 400 AD.

As to your final point, flattery won't cut it either.

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl , so laughable I won't respond point by point.

What you do is what the Catholic Church has been doing for 1600 years...talking out of both sides of your mouth. "His flesh and blood had to be eaten!" and "no one ate it because that's not what he meant!"

"Everything was symbolic!" and "the bread & wine are not!"

"The wine LITERALLY becomes his blood!" & " It is an unbloody sacrifice!"

"We must have the bread & the cup!" And " it's ok for only the Priest to have the cup!"

"His one sacrifise is sufficient!" And " We make it present again and again but aren't repeating it!"

You can buy that all you want...AND act shocked when such tomfoolery is rejected by biblical Christians...but you should never expect the rejection of your church to change without that changing. It's not biblical.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not acting shocked, and you cannot pin point the RCC to 1600 years only.

You pretend we say "everything was symbolic" when we don't.

It's easy to "diagnose" contradictions and tomfoolery if you get to say what the other guy has said, even if it isn't the least accurate.

As I go through previous, I'll have to grant you one point : Christ took His seat. We partake of Christ risen, seated in Heaven. Or standing, on occasion.

But even there He is "like one slain". Apocalypse 5:6.

Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades

Accusations à la Hochhuth's The Deputy · Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades · DT reattacks the Eucharist

Excuses for bad quality at publication yesterday, but html fixing was not finished, and I misjudged how much was missing under the stress of limited internet time. Added next day, HGL

[status:]

AN

What is the knowledge about waldensians? Who were they and why Roman Catholic Church oppressed them for centuries?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They were either a group of lay preachers around Peter Waldo, who went out of hand, and started some Protestant errors, or, according to some, went back before his time (in that case they infiltrated his followers and he wasn't one properly), back to the time of bishop Claudius of Turin, who was in his turn influenced by the Iconoclastic persecutors of the Church in Constantinople.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It seems DT is amused, are you up for a debate on this one?

Our older one is under IV here, do you want full name or is DT OK with you?

[link to previous]

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Waldenses were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. Beza dates the Waldensian church from A.D. 120 and their Old Itala Bible from A.D. 157. It was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century. Historians like Allix, Leger, Gilley, Comba, and Nolan document this churchs continual use of the pure text of the bible. They were persecuted severely between the fourth and thirteenth centuries by the Church of Rome. The bible of the Waldenses was used to carry the true text throughout Europe.

DT

Hans-George Lundhal, i am at the Doctor's this morning but will cerainly correct your misrepresentation of the Waldensians soon.

So...as said above the Waldensians differed with the (corrupt) Catholic church in the 1100's and were severely persecuted, as the RCC was want to do.

They objected to the sale of forgiveness for sins (indulgences), the baptism of unwitting babies, the supposed miraculous change of bread & wine to the actual flesh & blood of Christ, and the thoroughly unsupported limitation of the ministry to educated men.

Having long worked to gain secular power, the corrupt RCC had the Waldensians jailed, stripped of property and barred from meeting. A thoroughly disgusting mistreatment of dedicated Christians.

DT

Hans-George Lundahl???

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I missed your comment the day before yesterday, I have limited time online.

DT, this is for you, I am responding to AN's comment on another thread.

"the Waldensians differed with the (corrupt) Catholic church in the 1100's"

Fairly accurate, except for "corrupt".

This was the time of Peter Waldo. He didn't differ, he started a group of lay preachers that initially had some support from the bishop of Lyons. A RCC bishop.

"and were severely persecuted, as the RCC was want to do."

By that time, not yet. Severe persecution came with the Albigensian crusade, next century, and when Albigensian threat was over, things got more lenient with Waldensians too, even in France.

"They objected to the sale of forgiveness for sins (indulgences)"

At least if you go as late as 1500's, when they were in contact with other Protestants.

"the baptism of unwitting babies"

Seems to be correct.

"the supposed miraculous change of bread & wine to the actual flesh & blood of Christ"

Which is Biblical.

"and the thoroughly unsupported limitation of the ministry to educated men."

The limitation is pragmatic, and it has some uses, like avoiding the uneducation able to pretend Waldensians go back to 2nd C, as AN claimed.

Also, the preaching can among Catholics be extended to uneducated, with bishops' permission (bishop of Lyons temporarily giving one to Peter Waldo and the Pope permanently giving one to St. Francis of Assisi.

Also, the early 1500's proclamations from Laus and Chanforan don't seem to keep this so.

They have an accusation of clergy corrupting traditions, but not of clergy being wrong in demanding, usually, education.

"Having long worked to gain secular power,"

Like how?

"the corrupt RCC had the Waldensians jailed, stripped of property and barred from meeting."

At diverse occasions, fairly probably, and diverse levels of RCC responsibility too. Like the Pope himself was into the decision to make a Crusade against Albigensians, but when we come to 1655, we come to Catholic secular rulers. Their priests didn't say they were doing wrong and some said they were doing right, but they were less prominent than secular initiative.

"A thoroughly disgusting mistreatment of dedicated Christians."

Denial of real presence and sacrificiality of the Mass makes them at best misguided Christians.

DT

Hans-George Lundahl, I deny the real presence & sacraficiality of the Mass. I go further. I think the claim voodoo religion...a fable made up by thoroughly unbiblical men devoid of spiritual understanding almost entirely. Men who sell forgiveness, murder, rape children, create other entities to worship (Queen of Heaven...Saint Stanislaus!?), hawk a works (sacraments) salvation.

I think you need to take a closer look at just who was/is "at best misguided Christians"! AND stop excusing your church's evil deeds!

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl There are millions of dead because or RCC and Inquisition. Jews, waldensians, albignese, etc. That is more efficient killing and spy and deception organisation than any other in world history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There are millions of dead because or RCC and Inquisition."

DT, there you have the words of AN - a man who did say "millions" and who therefore arguablyis a believer in Trail of Blood, a tract with less accuracy than many a novel.

And AN, your bungling does not oblige me to bungle with you.

DT, you are like certain Jews in John 6 refusing to believe the words of God in the flesh.

John 6:54 in Douay Rheims, might be previous or next verse in KJV, since verse division sometimes differs.

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are (again) totally without reasonable excuse for the dispicable deeds of your church!

Your "at best misguided Christians" is refuted and instead shown to be fit for your sect as well.

And your baseless claim that i am like the Jews in John 6 ignores the fact that those Jews were offended because they took YOUR view...a literal view... rather than mine (a spiritual/representative view)!

It also fails to refute my evidence of ALL of OT ceremony being a representation of spiritual truth...none of it the literal substance.

When are you going to provide more than baseless claims? You invited debate but run from it when engaged!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If the Jews were offended by MISTAKENLY taking my view of what Christ meant, why didn't Christ correct them?

Too high and mighty to admit to having communicated badly?

Not very Christian like.

They were right in taking my view of what He meant (with very little modification, since they added a notion of cannibalism to it) and wrong in rejecting it.

"t also fails to refute my evidence of ALL of OT ceremony being a representation of spiritual truth"

I must have missed that comment, read it hastily, or else you edited that into it after my response.

I and RCC agree with you about OT ritual. What we don't agree with is putting NT ritual on the same footing with it.

When Christ says sth is His flesh, this is literal substance, and no longer OT ritual.

"When are you going to provide more than baseless claims?"

Which one did I miss?

"You invited debate but run from it when engaged!"

It seems you have some catching up to do with the rest of my recent comments, OK.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl I did my studies in history. Only 20 years of Baltic crusades saw 50% of the population dead. That is over a 1 000 000 people of various nations. Nobody counts Jews in Germany, France and Spain, muslims in Spain, catars, albignese, waldensians, lollards, indigenous tribes in New World, sabbath keepers in India, Ethiopians who died for sabbath etc. Also 8 crusades into Holy Land and Cyrenica etc. Many eastern crusades against slavs and finno ugric nations and baltic nations. Should I continue, or you see the pile of corpses already?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Only 20 years of Baltic crusades saw 50% of the population dead."

According to whom? How representative are they of RCC?

You know that Teutonic Order became Prussia, a Protestant power, and they tried a Crusade against Poland which was already Catholic and were defeated by Catholics at Grunwald / Tannenberg?

"That is over a 1 000 000 people of various nations."

What are your sources for population in Prussia, Estonia, Livonia and Curonia?

"Nobody counts Jews in Germany, France and Spain,"

Pogroms were both small and unendorsed by RCC. The one expulsion which caused death causalties was 1492, from Spain.

"muslims in Spain,"

Are you saying Christians had no right to fight back against unjust tyrannic misrule?

" catars, albignese,"

We know more were reconciled than killed by Inquisitors.

Bernard Guy tried 930 cases, had 45 burned, 42 burned in effigy.

And they were doing evil things, would have been killed under OT law too.

"waldensians,"

Before and after Albigensian threat, Waldensians were not very much persecuted by Inquisitors.

"lollards,"

We have a numbering of 282 or so known cases of killing, and from England / Scotland also 283 cases of Catholics killed.

"indigenous tribes in New World,"

More were killed by Protestant land grabbers than by Catholic conquistadors.

"sabbath keepers in India,"

Source desired.

"Ethiopians who died for sabbath"

Source desired.

"Also 8 crusades into Holy Land and Cyrenica etc."

One of which contained a large, well known wanton massacre deplored by its leader (1st Crusade) and one of which was a diplomatic mission (7? 8?).

The rest were mainly maintaining Christian rule or trying to establish it, to succour Christians.

"Many eastern crusades against slavs and finno ugric nations and baltic nations."

I think I mentioned you overdo the death toll in Baltic ones, perhaps except the repression after an insurrection in Prussia.

In Finland, Swedish crusaders (I'm a Swede) came to succour already Sweden loyal and Christian Finns against Pagan plundering neighbours.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have not very much sources about waldensians and others. Only in Genova were killed 3000 waldensians.

Lollards numbers were in thousands.

I am Estonian. I know the history of the region well. Read many contemporary accounts and modern works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Only in Genova were killed 3000 waldensians."

Would that have been 1655? There the decision was political, and provoked by Protestant killings of Catholics.

"Lollards numbers were in thousands."

C. 280 - 290 known cases.

"I am Estonian. I know the history of the region well."

If you are Estonian, your education system or that of the generation of your parents was in the hands of lying Communists.

"Read many contemporary accounts and modern works."

I don't really use all that many old ones. However, the accounts need to be from the times they are about.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl Long before protestants were waldensians all over Italy.

I use sources from era before any communist.

Materials describing Eastern crusades are from monks who were there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, what exact crusade would have given a death toll of one million according to what monk or monks?

"I use sources from era before any communist."

Czarists were not all that Catholic friendly either.

"Long before protestants were waldensians all over Italy."

I think that is vastly incorrect, as Paterini were Albigensians and not Waldensians.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl Read Livonian chronicles from 13th and 14th century.

You do not know the history of Baltics very well, it seems...

Read "Israel of the Alps."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, Livonian chronicles ... that includes South of present Estonia, but which entries taken together indicate 50 % died in a Crusade? Bc, one of the last courses I did at university was in fact Cultural history of the three Baltic Countries, at University of Lund, and the professor or docent or lector was an Estonian.

I did get, like in Prussia, the indigenous population became very unfree serfs.

I did not get, 50 % died.

I did also not get 1 000 000 died.

"Israel of the Alps" is by the Protestant pastor Alexis Muston, and co-written William Hazlitt, of Irish Protestant background, that is very anti-Catholic prejudice. Both died in the 19th C. when lots of anti-Catholic bias dominated historiography.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl That is an estimate number by our historians. Combined together all 7 nations of the area. Some even ceased existing shortly after. There is no such thing as anti catholic. You can see the references are all original sources.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That is an estimate number by our historians."

Yeah, OK, who were raised within Communism of the Soviet Union.

"Combined together all 7 nations of the area."

The only nation of which I have read anything remotely resembling this is Prussia.

"Some even ceased existing shortly after."

Livonian nation did that, but this is no proof they were all massacred, they had a Fenno-Ugrian language, so part might have become Eesti, and part simply became Latvians, if they lived sufficiently far South.

The Crusades did end any indigenous independent states.

"There is no such thing as anti catholic."

Oh, there definitely is.

"You can see the references are all original sources."

There is a difference between a historian's reference and his conclusion. Also, a Soviet era historian may well have faked some references and even more probably left out others, speaking for contrary conclusions.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl As I told you before - you forget a period of time when there were no communists and tsarists. When were free republics and free investigations into matters or crusades and deaths caused by them.

I was referring to the sources of "Israel of the Alps" and "Cross and Crown."

Hans-Georg Lundahl And really, you have no idea about "communist era" should not speak about it.

Nations ceasing to exist were semgals and sels. Also died out kurelians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Semgals became Latvians, as far as I can see.

Kurelians became Latvians.

Sels I don't know, but presume they too became Latvians. Or Eesti.

Any indigenous people ceased to be independent, and some of them merged into Eesti, some into Latvians, as per peasant language not very respected by the city dwellers and military orders speaking German.

But there is a difference between losing national identity and getting massacred to extinction.

There is also a difference between losing religious identity and getting massacred to extinction, as per Albigensians.

Also, you have not dealt with the fact that the normal RCC Inquisition is better represented by how we dealt with Albigensians than by the English national Inquisition dealing with Lollards or Military Orders.

If you have "Israel of the Alps" and "Cross and Crown" before you, you can cite their sources rather than referring to the overall analysis and telling me to read all, so why don't you do it?

I have a very good notion of Communist era, I was doing my military service when it ended.

We in the West knew, you in the East were being bamboozled by state sponsored propaganda.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl I do not have the books at hand.

There was a lot of state propaganda. But we still kept old books of history in secret and learned from them. There were very few who believed the state.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, but old books of history would probably have some Protestant (Estonia is mainly Lutheran, right?) anti-Catholic prejudice, some of the issues got cleared up in the West, during and after the Cold War, but it never got through to the East ...

II

Lea Greenall

They are part of the woman who fled into the wilderness that HaShem prepared for her to be under His protection during the absolute civil and temporal rule of the RCC church .... Rev 17:6

They stayed there and came out to join the reformation, only to be massacred wherever they went :(

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"They are part of the woman who fled into the wilderness that HaShem prepared for her to be under His protection"

OK, that's a theory.

"during the absolute civil and temporal rule of the RCC church"

We have a problem.

It would seem the RCC was the one spreading knowledge of the Gospel, and also it began its temporal rule way earlier than earliest mentions of anything like Waldensians.

So, how does your theory square with Matthew 28:16-20?

Lea Greenall, it didn't post under your comment, but it was an answer to it.

Lea Greenall

It is an undeniable fact that for approximately 1260 years there was one bible, written in latin, and only clergy of the RCC could have it, preach from it.... upon pain of death to others. The RCC attempted to thwart any other languages ie why Tynsdale was killed due him translating it into another language.

In this time the word of HaShem was added to with indulgences, an absolute host of other unbiblical rubbish that could not be verified as no one could use a bible.

The 'gospel' that the RCC spread was a false gospel... and 'woman' fleeing into the wilderness is 'church'... not a persecuting system like the RCC, but the true church as a whole. Since a woman is biblical prophesy represents a church.... Waldenses are part of that church, and since the OP specifically asked about them, they make up part of that church.

There is no problem at all if you view eschatology through the lense of Biblical Historicism and not Preterism or Futurism - which conveniently deny anything meaningful during the 'dark ages'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"for approximately 1260 years there was one bible, written in latin, and only clergy of the RCC could have it, preach from it.... upon pain of death to others"

It's perhaps "undeniable" in the Bible school you came from, but for someone knowing actual details of the Middle Ages, it's baloney.

There never was just one Bible, though in the West one tended to have Latin Vulgate only for most of Middle Ages.

Written in Latin is correct for it, but part of the time, Latin was the spelling of living Romance languages, and the people who learned to read from it had to learn supplementary case forms, about as laborious or little so as learning "thou" and "thee" and "thy" and "art" and "hast" and "wantedst" in a KJB. And part of the time, RCC clergy in many countries did make partial Bible translations, to vernacular, even if the countries touches by Albigensian and Waldensian heresies were excepted, and England imitated them.

The one country where possession of a vernacular Bible by laymen was immediate or nearly so condemnation for heresy, and therefore death penalty, was England. The Coventry martyrs were often killed for possessing even a Lord's Prayer in English. But in Wilvoorde, Tyndale was, contrary to Protestant legend, not condemned for translating the Bible, but for his take on Romans 3.

"The RCC attempted to thwart any other languages"

Apart from England, not the least true.

" ie why Tynsdale was killed due him translating it into another language."

He fled from England after doing so, but in Wilvoorde he was killed for his heretical exegesis of Romans 3. The refutations by James Latomus, his inquisitor, are still around, and while Bible translation may have made him suspect, his take on Romans 3 was what James Latomus pounced on.

"In this time the word of HaShem was added to with indulgences,"

Indulgences for the dead by prayer or sacrifice, II Maccabees 12.

Indulgences for alms to the poor at a burial, Tobit, I think chapter 4.

"an absolute host of other unbiblical rubbish"

So far, you have not proven any RC teaching unbiblical, let alone rubbish, the one example you gave being Biblical (more Biblical than calling Adonai / Ho Kyrios "HaShem", at the very least).

"that could not be verified as no one could use a bible."

Clergy could, nuns could, non-clergy monks often could, some laymen who had special permission could and so on. St. Francis was a layman in Italy who used a Bible about the kind of life he would live as religious.

"The 'gospel' that the RCC spread was a false gospel"

So far, you have not shown it.

"and 'woman' fleeing into the wilderness is 'church'"

Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:6 mentions DAYS, you pretend to speak of YEARS.

"not a persecuting system like the RCC, but the true church as a whole."

1) Why could the true Church not persecute?
2) Woman fleeing into wilderness certainly is, at least part of, the true Catholic Church in the end times.

" Since a woman is biblical prophesy represents a church.... Waldenses are part of that church,"

What are the other parts? Do they have the same doctrine? If they do not have the same doctrine, how are they one Church? Jesus told the Apostles "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", and this does not invite conflicts of doctrine. Do they chronologically add up to all times? If not, they aren't the Church, since the Church given this command was given a promise : "and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added]

"There is no problem at all if you view eschatology through the lense of Biblical Historicism and not Preterism or Futurism - which conveniently deny anything meaningful during the 'dark ages'."

I missed this one.

The age between 33 and Doomsday is the Millennium of Apocalypse 20.

Giving Antichrist 1260 days after giving His own Church over 1000 years to run things is consistent with God's goodness and with Apocalypse mentioning Beast and False Prophet like two persons.

Giving Antichrist 1260 years (which on top of that cannot be adequately identified historically) before giving His Church only 1000 years isn't.

Dark ages is not a correct term for the Middle Ages, though vastly popular among Anti-Catholic prejudiced people.

III

E.L.

The RCC under the direction of their god, Satan, persecuted every single group that kept the original apostolic doctrines and traditions alive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If the apostolic doctrines and traditions were persecuted by RCC, what group or what doctrine or tradition common to all of them, lasted all the while RCC supposedly persecuted all of them?

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl RCC has pagan roots for most beliefs...

E.L.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the RC, while adhering to doctrines of worshipping graven images and praying to persons other than the Father in heaven, persecuted every group that continued in the faith of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, baptism by immersion in water, manifestation of the spiritual gifts, etc. God hasn't limited his spirit to one group or denomination, but He has always had a remnant that followed apostolic doctrine.

TC

Hans-Georg Lundahl history doesn't reveal that there was such a group. But more so it does reveal a restoration and reformation of sorts pertaining to the lost gospel truths. The gospel is a broad term but within its there's much treasures. Holy spirit has restored particular truths and gifts to the every generation of the church (this will be clearly seen under the observation of church history).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

E.L. "persecuted every group that continued in the faith of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, baptism by immersion in water, manifestation of the spiritual gifts, etc."

But the RCC continued in manifestation of spiritual gifts! It was Calvin who invented "the age of miracles has ended" and not the RCC!

"God hasn't limited his spirit to one group or denomination,"

God has given His Spirit to exactly One Church, not to many. Read Acts 2.

"but He has always had a remnant that followed apostolic doctrine."

Remnants are for extreme times, like the time of Ahab in Israel, where a remnant of 7000 did not bow down to Baal, or the end times. What God always has is a Church, usually not a remnant, and usually concerned with following the commands in Matthew 28:16-20. The concern of turning all nations into disciples isn't compatible with being always just a remnant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

TC "history doesn't reveal that there was such a group. But more so it does reveal a restoration and reformation of sorts pertaining to the lost gospel truths."

So, there was no one group always in conflict with RCC, always persecuted by it, and always true to the Gospel?

There was a "Reformation" at which "lost" Gospel truths were "restored"?

Re-read Matthew 28:20, this word by God does not allow for that!

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl The term "church" does not mean denomination but body of believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl There were no lost truths. RCC tried to loose those but could not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Waldenses were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. Beza dates the Waldensian church from A.D. 120 and their Old Itala Bible from A.D. 157. It was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century. Historians like Allix, Leger, Gilley, Comba, and Nolan document this churchs continual use of the pure text of the bible. They were persecuted severely between the fourth and thirteenth centuries by the Church of Rome. The bible of the Waldenses was used to carry the true text throughout Europe.

E.L.

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, God has ONE church, but it's not a denomination. It's the body of believers who follow the doctrines of baptism by immersion in Jesus Name, baptism by spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues with signs following. Te body of believers who the RCC persecuted since the early days because the RCC chose to introduce pagan beliefs and heresy like the trinity, sun worship, praying to Mary, calling priests Father when Jesus said call no man father.

TC

AN indeed. That's the key point in understanding this whole discussion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AN // The term "church" does not mean denomination but body of believers. //

A body of believers having all truths cannot be same with a body of believers not having all truths.

Two denominations cannot both belong to the same body of believers. Not unless they are the same.

// There were no lost truths. RCC tried to loose those but could not. //

Interesting theory about RCC trying to lose any truths.

// Beza dates the Waldensian church from A.D. 120 and their Old Itala Bible from A.D. 157 //

Beza was not a very able Church historian, he was a reformer, a friend of John Calvin, and his dating was very tactical.

I do not agree that the Waldenses ever used the Itala, it was rather used by Catholics prior to the Vulgate, and arguably never by Waldenses.

What if you agree with Beza? Well, don't cite Beza who lived in the 16th C. and if I recall correctly into the beginning of the 17th C., quote old authors from second century and try to support they were speaking of Waldensians!

// Historians like Allix, //

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Allix

A DD from Cambridge of 1690 is bound to show anti-Catholic bias.

// Leger, //

Couldn't find in a quick search.

// Gilley, //

I found a Bruce Gilley, probably not the one you are talking about.

// Comba //

// Emilio Comba (1839–1904) was a celebrated Waldensian pastor and historian //

// Ernesto Comba presented arguments to demonstrate that the name Waldenses derived from valley ("vallis densa" valdensis) and that they already existed before the time of Peter Waldo. //

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Comba

They had a bias, and the argument about Vallis densa does not prove the actual sect was prior to Waldo. Even if it was, Baronius (who obviously had a bias of my own type) consider them derived from Claudius of Turin, a bishop taking up the Iconoclastic cause further West than anyone else, and hence less cruel than Copronymus et al.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius_of_Turin

Beyond that, but also prior to Waldo after Claudius, the arguments from documents would be very silent.

// Nolan //

This one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Thomas_Nolan

Instead of citing a list of historians, if you have read them, how do they argue that in AD 500 Piedmont had the dissent from RCC or early Constantinian Church (however you'd like to term it for back then) that later was pronounced by Waldensians, and that they held the Itala text in polemics against the Vulgate text? I'll give you a leeway from 450 to 550 for the documentation of that!

// They were persecuted severely between the fourth and thirteenth centuries by the Church of Rome. //

Again, show such persecution ongoing in AD 500, same leeway from 450 to 550 applies.

// The bible of the Waldenses was used to carry the true text throughout Europe. //

My own knowledge of Bible text transmission in the Middle Ages says sth else.

Catholics were the transmittors, not Waldenses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

E.L. // the doctrines of baptism by immersion in Jesus Name, baptism by spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues with signs following. Te body of believers who the RCC persecuted since the early days because the RCC chose to introduce pagan beliefs and heresy like the trinity, sun worship, praying to Mary, calling priests Father when Jesus said call no man father. //

OK, your definition of true Church:
* baptism by immersion
* non-trinitarian baptismal formula
* spirit baptism evidenced by glossolalia, as among Pentecostals
* non-trinitarian belief
* rejection of veneration of Mary
* rejection of calling priests father
* persecuted by RCC since the early days.

Show it existed in AD 500, that is show one clear group of such believers, Piedmont or elsewhere, which shows all of these criteria. NB, you also have the leeway to go between AD 450 to AD 550, as long as you don't abuse it to hitchpotch different beliefs who never were one group.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AN again, Pierre Allix actually pretended that Albigensians were not Manichaeans, but the same as Waldensians.

Not very good historian at all to me, the Book of Two Principles is extant.

E.L.

Hans-Georg Lundahl you're confusing RCC with the Christian body of believers Christ called his church. When Jesus said "upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" he was talking of the believers who accepted him as the son of God and followed his teachings. The RC took it as Peter was their first Pope. Ok, what did Peter preach? Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now, have you ever heard a catholic priest follow your first Pope's orders? Or do they sprinkle a few drops of water in the trinitarian invocation? Baptism is to be buried with Christ? Have you ever buried anything by throwing three grains of sand on it? Where did Peter ever pray to Mary? Jesus said "you will ask in my name". He also said " Our Father (not mother) who art in heaven". There is absolutely no scriptural proof Mary is on heaven or that she was venerated above any other saint. All these RC doctrines are constructs of mens minds added to the canon of scripture. If you set down with an open mind, pray to Jesus for guidance, and read the gospels, you will never look at the RCC the same way again. The RC is the Great Whore of Revelations that has martyred the saints and whored with the religions of this world. Just look at the staff of the Eucharist. The symbols upon it are the symbols of Ba'al Peor. Wake up my friend. You've been led far far away from God and true doctrine.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl There is a lot of gapping in the story. Sounds like deliberately hiding something.

Another source puts waldensians around 270 AD.

Btw, waldensians existed when Calvin lived, so, this source is from the same waldensians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Albignese and waldensians shared a lot in teachings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AN "There is a lot of gapping in the story. Sounds like deliberately hiding something."

You know something which CANNOT be successfully hidden?

A city built on a mountain.

Sharing doctrines with Albigensians is a very bad thing, unless one has other support for them. If they didn't even believe God had created our bodies (see the Book of Two Principles), they were not Christians.

This means, you cannot use "Albigensian line" to make Waldensians more ancient.

"Btw, waldensians existed when Calvin lived, so, this source is from the same waldensians."

They can have lied to Beza, Beza can have lied for them, or some of their predecessors may have invented the theory before the days of Beza.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

E.L. You missed my challenge. Whether I am right or wrong to identify the Church Christ founded with RCC, you have still shown no sign of YOUR "true Church" even existing in 450 to 550 AD.

E.L. Your list of discrepancies would be more impressive if we didn't have answers and if you did have a Church with your doctrine (all of the points given) in 450 to 550 AD.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl Or RCC can be lieing. Like they did before times and times again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Waldensians are documented from 150-s.AD So, long before 500th.

E.L.

Hans-Georg Lundahl you completely fail to understand anything other than your worship of your Pope. I'm finished.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AN You know what? If that were the case, - "Or RCC can be lieing" - that would not mend the case for Waldensian succession a bit.

Why? Bc there would still be lacking Waldensian documents from 450 AD to 550 AD, or even documents pertaining to them by accusers within RCC.

And a city built on a mountain cannot remain hidden.

Surfacing from hiding and remoteness after centuries won't cut it. It's about as credible as a society surfacing in 1717 AD and claiming succession from Solomon, King Hiram and Hiram Abbiff.

AN "Waldensians are documented from 150-s.AD So, long before 500th."

A claim by Beza in 1500 + does not constitute a document from 150 AD.

Plus, even if any sect in AD 150 could credibly be portrayed as equivalent of Waldensians, still does not cut it, since Christ in Matthew 28:20 specified "every day" and 450 to 550 belongs to that as much as 150 and 1500.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

E.L. I'm not quite yet. In denying Trinity, but yet affirming divinity of Christ, you are imitating Sabellius. From c. 215 AD. Can you document any Sabellians in 430 AD, or in 860 AD?

Oh, I am not worshipping Pope Michael, by the way, and "Pope Francis" isn't even my pope if you thought that.

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl There are documents. From various sources. From 390 s and 500s and 800s.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nice, name one.

IV

Joel Smith

The number 1260 appears seven times in the Book of Revelation, a couple times in Daniel & several times in Shi’ih Islamic prophecies. It is a certain year in the Islamic calendar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yeah, but Revelation and Daniel feature it as a number of days, not as a number of years.

V

LH

The Bible Sabbath Association has information about the Waldensians.

Some of the reasons the RCC persecuted them (and others) is they did not accept or teach about the unbiblical trinity; denied the pope as the Vicar of Christ; they refused to honor the RCC priesthood; they kept the 7th day Sabbath and some/all of the Appointed Times of God (Leviticus 23); they allowed "unordained" to teach and lead services; did not believe in infant baptism; nor did they teach about going to heaven after death, and other contradictory teachings to RCC doctrinal.

AN

LH As much as I know, they were trinitarians. As trinity is bible based. And they kept only sabbath, not other Jewish feasts.

E.L.

AN you cannot find trinity in the bible. Sorry.

AN

E.L. Word no, idea yes.

E.L.

AN a godhead with three manifestations, yes. Three persons, no.

AN

E.L. All three mentioned at least in three places.

E.L.

AN Hear oh Israel the Lord our God is one. Any other doctrine is Satanic in nature

AN

E.L. Jawe Elohim, Jawe ekad - "elohim" god in plural. Same verse in Hebrew.

E.L.

AN yes, three natures of God. God the father being a spirit cannot be seen. Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of God that I dwells believers. Three dwellings of the same spirit. Not three people. Only one throne in heaven. In the beginning was the Word ( Jesus) and the word was with God and the Word was God. You have to throw away far too many scriptures to make the RC doctrine of trinity work.

AN

E.L. In Jesuses baptism present: Jesus, in water, Father, in heaven speaking, Holy Ghost, flying as dove.

We are baptised in three names.

There are three witnesses in heaven.

E.L.

AN I am definitely not baptized in three names. I'm baptized in Jesus name as the apostles baptized. Jesus in the water: the man receiving the infilling of the Spirit of God. God created his earthly body but that body had to follow the same rules as everyone as was laid out by Jesus to Nicodemus: baptism in the water and by the spirit. God reconciled the mortal body to himself in Jordan. Three persons were not seen. The spirit of God came into his mortal body. Once again, God is a spirit. One spirit dwelling in believers, walking in the body Jesus Christ, everywhere present and nowhere absent.

You'll never see the revelation of the Godhead if you're not baptized in the spirit. Jesus told the disciples the Comforter, the indwelling spirit of God, would lead them in all truth. You're always going to struggle without it. Even the religious leaders of the day, the Pharisees couldn't understand it. To a spirit filled believer it's perfectly clear.

AN

E.L. Matthew 28:19-20 KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach j 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.

This is the word of God.

E.L.

AN yes, you just nailed it. Baptize in the NAME. Not names. If I said baptize this person in the name of E.L., AN, and Hans, it would mean that the three if us made up a corporate body with one mission, one purpose, one line of authority, and one purpose of administration. The godhead is three manifestations of one God, not three persons, since God is a spirit and the Holy Ghost is His spirit within us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

LH " they kept the 7th day Sabbath"

Could it be a tactic by that association to pose as in continuity with Waldensians?

Or is there any extant document from actual 13th / 14th C proceedings against Waldensians, that they did so?

AN

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, there are documents long before 13th century...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Like, how about giving examples?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added]

De Civitate Dei, by St Augustine? Wait, no, that was not a Waldensian document.

De Sacramentis, by St Ambrose? Oh, not really Waldensian either ...

Those fairly openly RCC documents (sometimes also claimed by High Church Anglicans who are a far cry from Waldensians or from Lollards) are really from way before 13th C, as in around 400 AD.

Writing Skills and Reading Skills

[William Paul Lazarus]

When I decided to become a writer, I was 7 years old. I taught myself and want to help anyone interested in writing. I've written a handbook based on my years as a professional writer and teaching writing.

It's available for free.

Just send me your email, and I will send the handbook back.

It will help you become a writer or improve your writing. It will also explain how to teach writing.

I know it worked for me. I have had 19 books (to date) published via five publishers, and had a successful career in newspapers, magazines, public relations, NASCAR and advertising. I still freelance for clients worldwide and have won numerous awards.

Now that I'm retired (from day to day work, not writing), I want to give back.

Ask for: How to Write
By William Paul Lazarus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

fine, I have read some of those ...

[William Paul Lazarus]

Cryptic and unclear. Good job as usual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is a direct reply to your "I've written a handbook based on my years as a professional writer and teaching writing."

What other part of your message could have promoted a response about "reading some of those"?

Handbooks of writing have been part of my hobbies, especially when I have been bored ... and taking a hint or two from them has been part of the things making me less bored.

Hence the initial "fine".

All lacks of clarity remedied? Or still anything cryptic to you?

[William Paul Lazarus]

Hans-Georg Lundahl I sup[pose that's clear to you, but not me. Perhaps you've misunderstood the basic principle of communication is that the recipient should understand the message. No one should have to parse your meaning by analyzing it. This isn't a poem, for example, which can have hidden meanings. It's supposed to be a straight forward note. If it has to be analyzed, the writer has failed to communicate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the basic principle of communication is that the recipient should understand the message."

No, the recipient should reasonably be expected to understand the message.

"No one should have to parse your meaning by analyzing it."

Not even the most obtuse?

"This isn't a poem, for example, which can have hidden meanings."

The meaning wasn't hidden.

"If it has to be analyzed, the writer has failed to communicate."

To that one recipient. I have no reason to believe one size fits all here. In Sweden, texts not supposed to be cryptic are given as assignments in "reading comprehension" in grade five or six. But even if they aren't cryptic, some of the fifth graders and sixth graders do fail comprehension.

If anything would be expected to perhaps be cryptic is, what none "those" referred back to.

The first noun in your text was "writer" and the second comes in the phrase: "I've written a handbook". Why should the noun that "those" referred back to come any later in your original message, when "handbook" [for those "interested in writing"] clearly makes sense?

Btw, I'd like to read "How to Write", since, as said, the genre is a favourite pastime of mine. Would you give it online or send a paper copy? And would you be willing to have it criticised for how it works in its genre (one in which I have some experience, though I wrote none myself)?

[William Paul Lazarus]

Hans-Georg Lundahl Enough bull. The communicator is responsible for his communication. If the receiver doesn't understand then the communicator didn't communicate. Period. I didn't spend years studying communication to have further discussions with someone who has no grasp of a simple fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I would be happy to send you a copy. I can't attach it to Facebook. I'm not printing a copy. I'm not sure how to put it online since it's too long for posting or putting in a blog. I am open to suggestions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you grasp the fact that you are not the only receiver?

You know my adress, and I prefer a paper copy anyway.

Accusations à la Hochhuth's The Deputy

Accusations à la Hochhuth's The Deputy · Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades · DT reattacks the Eucharist

meme

"During World War II, Pope Pius XII told the US, that he could not confirm reports that Germans were executing Jews. In 2020, newly unsealed documents proved he was lying and knew all along what happened."

I

Joel Smith

Pope’s owned slaves. Popes decreed that any nonChristian in Africa was slave material. The Pope split rights to the new world between Spain & Portugal.

SEİ

Didnt protestants own hoardes of slaves and on their labor build america ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Popes decreed that any nonChristian in Africa was slave material."

One Pope (15th C.) gave Portugal such an authorisation, in retaliation for African non-Christians hunting Christians for slaves.

Portugal continued to use it after encountering Blacks who had not been hunting Christian slaves, but even they were at least as bad as being habitual slave hunters.

The words of that one Pope were not directly revoked, but neither were they renewed when Angola or Moçambique were already around under Portugal, it just continued from that one occasion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

SEİ Netherlands and England were very eagerly borrowing Islamic racist motivations for black slavery.

They were more slaveist than Portugal and France, least slaveist was the very Catholic Spain.

II

LVJM

There is good and bad in everyone.

GM

He is burning in hell now..

III

ShSW

Sickening
I wonder what possible reason he could have

Hans-Georg Lundahl

From the site:

// According to historians studying the documents, an adviser dismissed the reports as exaggerated, prompting the pope to tell the US that "the Vatican was unable to confirm the crimes." //

In other words, he listened to an adviser.

ShSW

Hans-Georg Lundahl thank you. That makes sense. The truth was so unbelievable, I can see how that would happen

IV

DT

An historically awful institution. Founded on lies, propigated via death, unfit for true believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your view of the historic novel "Trail of Blood" was not quite the issue here ...

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl, i did not refer to any novel. I referred to very real events...to countless tortures and killings of very real men & women ... many of them believers in Christ.

That is the well documented history of this church & this IS a history (& archeology) site.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

DT You know how many cases Bertrand Guy tried as Inquisitor in Toulouse overall, over a lapse of years (I think a decade)? You know how many of them went to the stake?

Does your "Trail of Blood" even tell?

I think "Trail of Blood" is less well documented than several historic novels.

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl, what part of "i am not speaking of 'Trail of Blood" are you not able to comprehend?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You did not use those words. You spoke of what you are considering as "any novel" and if you believed "Trail of Blood" you would arguably consider it as documentation.

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl, i previously said "I am not referring to any novel"...it is right above here still!

That obviously includes Trail of Blood". I do not care what "Trail of Blood" says! I care about the well documented inguisitions which ocurred, especially in Spain, and the torture and killing the Fatholic Church committed.

Do you deny that it occurred?

Are you aware of the fact that the RCC has admitted they did occur?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// That obviously includes Trail of Blood". //

No, since it is not presented as such.

// I care about the well documented inguisitions which ocurred, //

I confronted you with Bernard Guy, what do you know of his extremely well documented carreer as Inquisitor?

// and the torture and killing //

You also said "countless" which is where Trail of Blood comes in.

I am not saying no one was tortured or no one was killed.

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl , "i am not reffing to any novel" DOES mean that i am not referring to TOB since it is a novel. "Any" means "all" & all includes TOB.

Your lack of comprehension stands.

I am not familiar with Bernard Guy, and you "confronted" nothing...i do not need to be familiar with any one man in order to address the historical record of the Catholic Church's inquisitions.

Confront the tortures and killings, one of which would be too many. That is the task before all who were informed by Christ to love one another.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We are also informed by St. Paul in Romans 13:4

For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

Note, neither the torture, nor the death penalties were done by priests, they were done by the civil authority. Priests supervised it so that innocent people should have the benefit of an assumption of innocence, rather than get stamped as heretics by lay fanaticism or by local lay authorities confusing dogma with locally accepted doctrine.

TOB is not in fact a novel, I used "historic novel" rhetorically as an indication of its low historic accuracy.

// The Trail of Blood, a 1931 book by American Southern Baptist minister James Milton Carroll (1852-1931), comprising a collection of five lectures he gave on the history of Baptist churches, which he presented as a succession from the first Christians. //

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood

When you say "documented" you in fact do need to take into account Bernard Guy, both because he was reputed extra stern, so if his death count is low, that of other inquisitors is lower, and because he is unusually well documented, since his cases from his time in Toulouse are still on the record they were back then.

930 cases (perhaps fewer people since same person could be involved in both an imprisoning and a liberation), and of these 45 died at the stake and 42 were burned in effigie, i e had either escaped from the prison or escaped warrants of arrest, but straw dolls with their names on them were burned.

This doesn't sound like "countless" to me.

Fast forward a few centuries to Spain, I think I read a description (but here I am on less sure ground as to where and what inquisitor) were fifty people were involved in an Auto da Fé, 3 burned after the other ones had proclaimed their Catholic faith.

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you have (unwittingly?) provided a great example of what is wrong with Catholicism. Any institution that follows up the tortures & killings that it prompts by saying either "the civil authorities we directed actually did it, not us!" or "it was, by our count, only about 45 people burned alive due to their disagreement with our doctrine!" is RIGHTLY judged "hardly Christian".

"Barbaric", "evil", "inhumane", "the opposite of known by their love" all fit much better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fine, you show you disagree with killing people over doctrine.

However, "only 45" isn't the total of all inquisitors, its the proportion of the 930 cases judged by one particularly well known. So, you should ditch the "countless" and start thinking "one in twenty". And if he was particularly harsh, which seems to have been his reputation, perhaps less than one in twenty overall.

The point is, you are as wrong on "countless" as Trail of Blood is wrong on "millions".

You did not adress the fact that we have a theological rationale for the killing being deserved (see stoning for blasphemy under OT law), and for people deserving killing sometimes getting executed by civil authorities (see Romans 13:4).

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly what newly unsealed documents?

Quoting from the link:

// Early in 2020, however, documents related to the pope's wartime activities, previously held in the Vatican Archives, were unsealed, and they suggest that Pius learned of the mass executions of the Jewish people in the fall of 1942. According to historians studying the documents, an adviser dismissed the reports as exaggerated, prompting the pope to tell the US that "the Vatican was unable to confirm the crimes." //

So, the fact that person X considers report Y as exaggerated makes him a liar?

// The new evidence, detailed in the German weekly Die Ziet, reiterates that in September 1942, Pius's assistant, the future Pope Paul VI, received an eyewitness report of Jews being persecuted in Warsaw. According to Haaratz, in August 1942, Ukrainian Archbishop Andrzej Szeptycki also informed the Vatican of persecution being carried out in the Lvov ghetto. //

Here we speak of eyewitnesses to persecution, not using the word execution.

Also, the German weekly is called "Die Zeit".

VI

AG

He spoke as a person with the knowledge he had at the prevailing time. How sure are we that newly unsealed documents are true.

Condemn not before you remove the slec from your eyes.Amen

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

VII

König Der Traum

Christians pretending they care about Jews lives....... tell me what happens in the end times??? And how Jews will be massacres by Jesus and his armies?? Or am I wrong

KA

König Der Traum ... You are wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And how Jews will be massacres by Jesus and his armies??"

Antichrist's armies, having persecuted Christians for 3 and a half years, will be massacred by armies from heaven. Arguably some apostate Jews will be among them and probably very prominent among their chief.

Before that, Henoch and Elijah will have spent 3 and a half years converting Jews and other non-Christians, and will be killed by apostate Jews in Jerusalem. Thereone 7000 Jews will convert in one day.

Before that, 144 000 Jews will convert.

In the Christian view, Judaism as now known will not exist, it will be divided into Jews who become Christians and Jews who accept Antichrist as their Messiah, and that will arguably be incompatible with at least Haredim versions of Judaism. Hence, Apostate from the "Jewish" point of view too.

When I say apostate, I mean from a Christian viewpoint, but arguably they will also be such from the traditional Jewish point of view, since adoring a man who is just a man is against the Torah too.

König Der Traum

Hans-Georg Lundahl long story short Jews will be killed by Jesus and his armies ... after he come down after 7 years..no?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So, long story short, you identify Jews with apostates and Christianophobe killers?

PC

Yep, König Der Traum, completely & utterly wrong! Obviously you have great and yawning gaps in your knowledge. Try reading that completely Jewish book called the New Testament.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

König Der Traum - I note you live at one of the four corners of the continents ...

I think you should read both Apocalypse 7 and Apocalypse 20.

VIII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Anyone who thinks this list is anything like good reading for Christians, check how one item is formulated : "Imprisoning Galileo In His Home For Years Because He Suggested Science Was Greater Than God"

In other words, the list is compiled by an Atheopath.

IX

Ephesus Pure In Heart

Probably a lie! US was isolationist and wanted no part of Europe from 1936 to 1941. Why would the Pope in Rome confide with any American politician or member of the Press? Pope Pius XII stopped Jews being deported by the Nazis in 1940 to 1944. The USA knew about the holocaust in at least December 1942 and did nothing! The USA blocked ships with Jewish Refugees in 1938. STOP ACCUSING OTHERS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree with the general sentiment, but it is more half truth than lie. If you go to the link, an advisor to Pius XII told him to consider the reports exaggerated.

He had a wartime correspondence with Truman.

X

JMcA

NOT saying it didn’t happen. 🙄
but do we have the source material?

The ‘newly unsealed documents’?
That would help when discussing the validity of the Catholic Church...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not really, since a sin by a Catholic leader, including the Pope, does not automatically invalidate Catholicism.

JMcA

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You’re right.

Not even all the documented horrors committed by the Catholic Church doesn’t invalidate them.

The obvious outright heresy they teach does that just fine. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, you think Catholics are "heretics" and committed "documented horrors"?

For one, not believing reports of executions of Jews by Germans, after an adviser claimed they were exaggerated is not a horror.

Second, if you were referring to others, definitely promoted as general policy by the Catholic Church, if any such were a horror, that would invalidate them, as per being a heresy in moral doctrine (if you thought Inquisition, join the fray on DT's side higher up).

Third, whatever heresy you considered an outright such, welcome to define it ... but you might want to read this first:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Got Questions? "what are the differences", and a Catholic answer
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2020/07/got-questions-what-are-differences-and.html