Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Catholic Persecution of Christians


Recommended Posts

  • Members

You're referring to the Reformation. Yes, I agree it was a bad time for all Christians. The word persecute is a bit harsh. We never persecuted anyone like the Romans persecuted us in the early centuries, if we did I'd be abliged to tell you. If you read it from our view, you'll see it was an all our war. Non-Catholic Christians were burning Rome and killing Catholics. I would say both are at fault during the Reformation.

 

The RCC tried to annihilate the true christian church for centuries before the reformation.  Have you heard of the massacre at Beziers, where every soul was killed.  A bishop was asked how could they tell a heretic from a catholic?  "Kill them all said the bishop, god knows his own."  

 

Have you heard of the Waldensians who were persecuted for hundreds of years both before and after the reformation.  The campaigns against those and people like the Albigenses were called 'crusades'.  

 

Have you heard about Ireland in 1641/1642 where the persecution was against all 'protestants' where the priests urged their flocks to exterminate their neighbours and the only safe place was Dublin and the only burial allowed was of those who were still alive.  

 

Have you heard of the Iron virgin, a terrible idol which when opened up had many spikes inside?  The victim was placed inside and pierced with the spikes, and when opened the victim was ejected into a river flowing below.  

 

Have you heard of the victims of the Romanist Mary, queen of England, under whose reign hundreds were burnt to death.  here is a memorial only about 9 miles from here which remembers some of her victims, some of the baptists.

 

http://www.machadoink.com/Martyrs%20Memorial.htm

 

 

These are only examples of the millions who were massacred by the Roman Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No doubt, back in that day the Catholics tried to wipe out Jesus' New Testament Churches. They tried their best, but you cannot win when you fight against God.

 

IF, that is IF, they had succeed there would not be none of us Baptist around today. For that was the people they hated. Our forefathers would not accept their baptizing, would not accept infant baptizing, because of that along with the refusal to convert many faithful believers were drug out of their houses, & told they would die if they refused to convert. Those that refused were beaten, stoned, & burned at the stake. They also tried their best to destroy all records of us, & went so far as to try & rewrite history. They wanted to wipe us totally out of the history books wanting to become "The Church," trying to make it so that anyone wanting to know about God would have to come to them.

 

They did not know God in those days, & they still do not know God, they're a very evil bunch & if they thought they could get by with it they would go back to trying to kill us off the face of this earth. They would love nothing better than to rule the world. Their father is the devil, & they do the works of their father. If there are any saved people within the Roman Catholic Church God says to them, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

 

 

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Trail of Blood is a book of suppositions.

 

Yes, I know what you think of the Trail of Blood, but when your interested in the real truth, read it. To be honest the majority of people stand against it, but that does not surprise me the least bit.

 

 

Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
 
The majority of people are gathered around the broad wide gate, that's where all the action is taking place. People just naturally feel safer when they're gatherer together with the majority of people, so they tend to make their way to where all the actions is taking place.
 
There's not many people gathered around the strait narrow gate, there's just not enough action taking place, that just ins't the least bit appealing to worldly people. So sad, the majority of people are headed to eternal destruction. But as long as they have breath they can repent, & be in that number that will go though that strait narrow gate which leadeth unto life.
 
And sadly, many saved people run with the world, the lost people, much as Lot did. And their witness is only as good as Lots was, who seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
 
Ge 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Trail of Blood is a book of suppositions.


Actually it is a short historical book written by a man, based on available history and research. It had that man's personal biases and opinions, and is not 100% accurate, but it is a very good place to start understanding the history of those who held (mostly) to Biblical fundamentals.

There are among those who are listed, groups with which most of us today would not join - generally for procedural or method reasons, but in basic doctrines most (most that is!) were biblical in their following.

It is not infallible by any stretch, certainly not inspired, and not even a complete record - BUT it is far better than the catholic or protestant corruptions of history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually it is a short historical book written by a man, based on available history and research. It had that man's personal biases and opinions, and is not 100% accurate, but it is a very good place to start understanding the history of those who held (mostly) to Biblical fundamentals.

There are among those who are listed, groups with which most of us today would not join - generally for procedural or method reasons, but in basic doctrines most (most that is!) were biblical in their following.

It is not infallible by any stretch, certainly not inspired, and not even a complete record - BUT it is far better than the catholic or protestant corruptions of history.

 

I know, I have read it.  It doesn't tell you much.  It does say the Montanists were baptists, but my reading of them says they were heretics, Tertullian who joined them later in life taught that all marriage was wrong as it consists of the same act as adultery.  He also wrote that all christian women should be veiled.  They also taught several doctrines that were later incorporated into RC doctrine such as venal and mortal sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know, I have read it. It doesn't tell you much. It does say the Montanists were baptists, but my reading of them says they were heretics, Tertullian who joined them later in life taught that all marriage was wrong as it consists of the same act as adultery. He also wrote that all christian women should be veiled. They also taught several doctrines that were later incorporated into RC doctrine such as venal and mortal sins.


No argument here - it is not perfect, and even some things he wrote in it have through subsequent evidence been found to be inaccurate.

I just think your short statement was a little light on detail causing it to sound a little overstated.

It is not all bad, but it is not perfect.

To include a few more details as in your post here is far more constructive.
And there is more detail along those lines which could be included.

As others said, a good place to START.
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No argument here - it is not perfect, and even some things he wrote in it have through subsequent evidence been found to be inaccurate.

I just think your short statement was a little light on detail causing it to sound a little overstated.

It is not all bad, but it is not perfect.

To include a few more details as in your post here is far more constructive.
And there is more detail along those lines which could be included.

As others said, a good place to START.
;)

It's too flawed to be a good place to start. One should start with the truth, not a very flawed attempt to match the Catholics by being able to claim a direct line to Christ. As you point out, many things within have been proven to be false and the biases of the author lead to some dangerous ideas.

 

The simple fact is that anyone who ever was or now is born again in Christ has a direct line to Christ regardless of any man-made labels or lack of labels.

 

The best place to study is right in the Bible. These attempts to trace lines only serve as temporal distractions, not eternal glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I basically agree with you, but men will study history.
And all men write with personal bias - we can't help it.

It is indeed a good place to start, but those who finish with it will find themselves short on knowledge and understanding.

A student of history needs to do much Research, but surely you would not leave the sources to those who would corrupt the record?

However, as I pointed out, it is not infallible nor is it inspired - no man should try to teach or support doctrines from anything other than the Word of God.

I have many books on history, both from a secular point, and from a religious point. Amongst those with a religious point, I have catholic and protestant points, and fundamental and baptist points.
Some are light, some are in depth.

Even reading the catholic.histories sheds light on some things, as their historical record is not all corrupted.

The trail of blood is a relatively short little book which is not in depth. That in itself stops the writer giving lengthy explanations of some points, but the vast majority of his information is correct, although limited.

It is a good STARTING POINT for historical study.

Not for doctrine, not for reproof, not for correction, not for instruction in righteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...