The Notre Dame Cathedral, a monument of the Dark Ages

[blackbird]

On 1/11/2025 at 1:01 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

I presume you know that Catholics were persecuted as well? 

Yes, there were some Catholics that were persecuted and executed in the Reformation in the UK, but this was a miniscule number compared with the number of victims of the Holy Roman Inquisition that lasted for reportedly six hundred years in different countries in Europe.

I am not aware of Catholics being tortured by Protestants.   The people that were tortured in the Inquisition were the "heretics" that refused to bow to Rome.

This is one of the tools of the Inquisition:

"

One end of the fork pressed under the chin, while the other pierced the chest, forcing the victim to hold their head upright.

If they moved or nodded off, the prongs would stab into their flesh. This device was designed to inflict prolonged discomfort, rather than immediate death, instilling fear and control over the accused...."

 

Edited January 13, 2025 by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 1/13/2025 at 7:52 PM, blackbird said:

Yes, there were some Catholics that were persecuted and executed in the Reformation in the UK, but this was a miniscule number compared with the number of victims of the Holy Roman Inquisition that lasted for reportedly six hundred years in different countries in Europe.

I am not aware of Catholics being tortured by Protestants.   The people that were tortured in the Inquisition were the "heretics" that refused to bow to Rome.

This is one of the tools of the Inquisition:

"

One end of the fork pressed under the chin, while the other pierced the chest, forcing the victim to hold their head upright.

If they moved or nodded off, the prongs would stab into their flesh. This device was designed to inflict prolonged discomfort, rather than immediate death, instilling fear and control over the accused...."

 

You’re not aware of Catholics tortured by Protestants? Irish history must be unknown to you. And Luther became obsessed with the Jews. 
 

Quote

…the prominent 16th-century Jewish leader Josel of Rosheim. [1]

A revered lobbyist and diplomat for German Jews, he was fiercely persecuted by Martin Luther, who authored virulent anti-Jewish texts and urged their expulsion. In turn, Josel heavily petitioned the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key events in their historical clash and cooperation:

• Luther’s Persecution: Luther grew hostile toward Jews when they refused to convert to his Protestant movement, publishing fiercely antisemitic tracts like On the Jews and Their Lies. Josel actively combated Luther's slanders and even asked the city of Strasbourg to ban these texts. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Protecting the Jews: While the Emperor also posed dangers, Josel recognized Charles V as a "defending angel" against the extreme religious violence advocated by Luther. [1]
• The Imperial Rescue: Josel used intense diplomacy to defend his people against blood libels. Through his efforts at the Imperial Diets, Josel successfully secured protective royal charters. In 1544, at the Diet of Speyer, Emperor Charles V reaffirmed the official rights and privileges of Imperial Jews

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:47 AM by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

And as for Notre Dame, here is Kenneth Clark in his wonderful series, Civilisation:

 

[John Johnston]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

And as for Notre Dame, here is Kenneth Clark in his wonderful series, Civilisation:

 

External Buttresses. I love Architecture, but like a lot of exquisite buildings they have a Dark history. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 hours ago, John Johnston said:

External Buttresses. I love Architecture, but like a lot of exquisite buildings they have a Dark history. 

Flying buttresses sounds more dramatic? No doubt thousands suffered to create such beauty. 

[John Johnston]

52 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Flying buttresses sounds more dramatic? No doubt thousands suffered to create such beauty. 

Yup. To wit. Most of Egyptian Architecture, Chinese Architecture, South America, I suppose I could go on all day.

[SpankyMcFarland]

When I visited Italy I thought I’d be impressed by the Roman architecture but it was the Renaissance churches and Palladian mansions that caught my eye. While Venice may be an over-visited cliché at this stage, its beauty remains unrivalled in the West. In my opinion. 

[blackbird]

16 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You’re not aware of Catholics tortured by Protestants? Irish history must be unknown to you. And Luther became obsessed with the Jews. 

If you think there was any similarity between the two you have believed propaganda put out by followers of Rome.

Rome controlled the western world and the Kings and Emperors were under the control of the Vatican for a large part of history up until the Reformation when people began to rebel against the totalitarianism of Rome.

Perhaps take the time to do some research and learn about the groups that were exterminated and eliminated by Rome back in history.  There was no such thing as freedom of religion.  That is a relatively recent development and still doesn't exist everywhere.  The struggle for freedom of religion came about through wars that lasted at least a hundred years and only in some places.

One example that occurred in France was the Massacre of French Huguenot Protestants beginning on St. Bartholomew's Day in 1572.  It only began on that day.  The King of France led the massacre and his subjects followed.

quote

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was a brutal wave of violence against French Huguenots, instigated by political and religious tensions, resulting in thousands of deaths starting on August 24, 1572.

Background

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre occurred during a period of intense religious conflict in France, known as the French Wars of Religion. The massacre was primarily directed against the Huguenots, who were French Calvinist Protestants. Tensions had been escalating due to the political rivalry between Catholics and Protestants, particularly after the marriage of Margaret of Valois to Henry of Navarre (a Huguenot leader) on August 18, 1572, which was intended to foster peace between the two factions Wikipedia+1.

unquote

According to the booklet, Smokescreens, in the first three days over 10,000 were killed.  The bodies were thrown into the river and blood ran in the streets.

A similar massacre occurred in Ireland in 1642 where 40,000 Protestants were sacrificed by the Papists.

Even in the 20th century, massacres continued.  Maybe you never heard about the massacre of the Serbs by the Ustashi in Croatia with the involvement of Croatian priests, nuns, bishops and archbishops.  The booklet Smokescreens has a photograph of nuns marching with Croatian Nazi-Legionnaires (Ustashi).  You can get this booklet and others from Chick Publications online.

There is no comparison.  Rome was by far the dominant religion in the west and they ruled the people with an iron fist for centuries.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity.  The Holy Roman Inquisition was Satanically inspired, six hundred and fifty year long rule by torture and brutality.  What Martin Luther did with the Jews was nothing compared to the persecution of the Jews throughout Europe for at least 1,500 years.

You need to do some studying if that subject interests you.

Time would be better spent studying the Bible which was banned from the common people by Rome for centuries.

Edited Tuesday at 09:41 PM by blackbird

[User]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Time would be better spent studying the Bible which was banned from the common people by Rome for centuries.

This is a gross oversimplification.

The Bible was not banned; the Church taught people the Bible, and what they strictly tried to control were any unauthorized modern language translations. The vast majority of people were illiterate regardless.

[blackbird]

21 hours ago, User said:

This is a gross oversimplification.

The Bible was not banned; the Church taught people the Bible, and what they strictly tried to control were any unauthorized modern language translations. The vast majority of people were illiterate regardless.

No, the church did not want people to read the Bible themselves until the past century and even now it is tightly controlled and only their version is permitted.  Perhaps you have heard of the Imprimatur which must be in the first pages of the Bible approved by the Vatican.  This article explains some of this.

Here is an interesting article on what actually happened through the centuries.  I would dispute how the original canon came to be.  Rome of course claims it was the Roman church that gave us the original New Testament.  But there is lots of evidence that refutes that claim too.

quote 

Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years

Wouldn't you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels?

By Bernard Starr, Contributor

College Professor (Emeritus, City University of N.Y),psychologist, journalist.

May 20, 2013, 02:57 PM EDT

|Updated Jul 20, 2013

This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels. That's why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.

Wouldn't you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels? And wouldn't the best way of spreading the "good news" be to ensure that every Christian had direct access to the Bible?

That's not what happened. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own -- a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.

Yet, a different model already existed in Judaism. Dating back to the Exodus, Moses ordained public readings of the Torah, according to Jewish Roman historian Flavius Josephus: "...every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Torah and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge." That practice later became standard in synagogue services, in which the Old Testament (Torah) is read over a year in sequence, covering the entire Bible. In fact, as a practicing Jew, Jesus read the weekly parsha (section of the Torah) at the Sabbath services that he regularly attended: "And he went to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read" (Luke 4:16).

Since the Church sequestering their sanctioned Bible from the populace makes no sense, I was not surprised that some readers bristled when I recently wrote about the historic prohibitions against Christians reading the New Testament on their own, or worse, translating the Bible into a native language. One called me a liar. That too was not surprising. A few years earlier I gave a talk at an American Psychological Association meeting and afterwards lunched with a group of young Christians, some of whom also challenged my statements about the Bible prohibitions. I later sent them references documenting my claims, but never heard back from them. I've always wondered how they reacted to the citations I sent, which included:

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

While I was writing my book "Jesus Uncensored: Restoring the Authentic Jew," it became increasingly clear to me that there was another more potent motive for keeping the New Testament out of reach for Christians: to conceal the Jewish foundation of Christianity and Jesus' lifelong dedication to Judaism and Jewish practices.

Would the newly established Church want converts to know that Christianity began as a Jewish sect and that Jesus was a thoroughly dedicated practicing Jew who never suggested the launch of a new religion? Would the Church want it revealed that Jesus lived and died a dedicated Jew, as observed by Christian writer Jean Guitton in his book "Great Heresies and Church Councils"?

Jesus did not mean to found a new religion. In his historical humanity, Jesus was a devout Israelite, practicing the law to the full, from circumcision to Pesach, paying the half-shekel for the Temple. Jerusalem, the capital of his nation, was the city he loved: Jesus wept over it. Jesus had spiritually realized the germinal aspiration of his people, which was to raise the God of Israel...

Wouldn't Church officials also want to conceal that the disciples, led by James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, continued to maintain their Jewish identities but made Rabbi Jesus the centerpiece of their Jewish practices (Acts of the Apostles). Later, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, initiated a rift between his brand of Jewish Christianity and the teachings of the Jerusalem-based disciples of Jesus. That divide eventually drifted toward increasing separation of Christianity and Judaism. But Jewish converts to the new Jewish Christianity continued to worship in synagogues, a practice that was still proliferating as late as the fourth century. The vicious "Homilies Against the Jews" by Saint John of Chrysostom (386-387 C.E.) make that clear. Why would the Bishop of Antioch, and later Archbishop of Constantinople, spend so much time and energy excoriating Christians for continuing to attend synagogues and participating in Jewish practices? The Church was clearly stepping up its attack on Judaism to enhance and expedite a total break with Judaism. To accelerate that process the charge of "Christ Killers" against Jews was stepped up as well. The "blood libels" -- the accusation that Jews ritually murdered Christian children to extract blood for religious practices -- is evidence of the intensification of attacks against the Jews.

But there was that pesky New Testament, a thoroughly Jewish document, as Anglican priest Bruce Chilton has noted: "It became clear to me that everything Jesus did was as a Jew, for Jews, and about Jews."

If Christians had access to the Bible in its entirety, not only the limited editions that the clergy presented, they might have noticed what leaped out at me: The word "Jew" appears 202 times in the New Testament, with 82 of these citations in the Gospels. The term "Christian" never appears in the Gospels at all, for the obvious reason that there was no Christianity during the life of Jesus -- only Judaism, in which he and his family, disciples and followers were immersed. Readers of the Gospels might also have noted that when Jesus wasn't addressing the "multitudes" (of Jews) he was teaching in synagogues and was attending Jewish holy day celebrations. And his disciples called him rabbi. Since the Gospel writers couldn't keep Judaism out of Jesus' life story and ministry -- without the Judaism there would be no story -- they invoked the ban on the Bible while Christianizing Jesus with selective and edited stories that they conveyed to the public.

The Christianizing process, along with erasing Jesus' Jewish identity, continued throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods. It is dramatically illustrated in classical artworks, in which Jesus and his family show no trace of a connection to Judaism. In this ethnic cleansing of Judaism they are pictured as fair-skinned Northern Europeans living in palatial Romanesque settings surrounded by later-day Christian saints and Christian artifacts and practices -- images completely alien to their actual Jewish lives in a rural village in Galilee.

But today, in a new era of reconciliation, Christians and Jews are recognizing the strong connection between the two religions. Some Christians are adopting Jewish practices like the Passover Sederand the Jewish marriage ceremony under the chuppah (canopy), and couples are signing the ancient Jewish ketuba (marriage contract). Others are visiting synagogues to relive the experience of Jesus.

Several years ago 170 Jewish scholars and leaders from all four branches of Judaism issued a statement calling on Jews "to relinquish their fear and mistrust of Christianity and to acknowledge Church efforts in the decades since the Holocaust to amend Christian teaching about Judaism."

When Timothy Dolan returned from the Vatican after his elevation to cardinal in 2012, he appeared on the popular TV show "The View." Barbara Walters, one of the hosts, playfully said to the affable Cardinal, "I'm crazy about you. I'm thinking of converting. Do you take Jewish girls?" Dolan responded, "My favorite girl of all time was Jewish." "Who is that?" Walters asked with a surprised look. "Mary" Cardinal Dolan answered softly. His casual remark suggests that the celebration of common ground can trump doctrinal differences.

Bernard Starr is a psychologist, college professor, and journalist. He is author of Jesus Uncensored: Restoring the Authentic Jew, which is available at Amazon (grayscale and color edition), Barnes and Noble, and other major outlets.

Edited Wednesday at 07:17 PM by blackbird

[User]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, the church did not want people to read the Bible themselves until the past century and even now it is titled controlled and only their version is permitted.  This article explains it.

Well... figuring that you sit here saying only the KJV is right... I am not sure what point you are making here about them insisting on any particular version. 



 

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

If you think there was any similarity between the two you have believed propaganda put out by followers of Rome.

Rome controlled the western world and the Kings and Emperors were under the control of the Vatican for a large part of history up until the Reformation when people began to rebel against the totalitarianism of Rome.

Perhaps take the time to do some research and learn about the groups that were exterminated and eliminated by Rome back in history.  There was no such thing as freedom of religion.  That is a relatively recent development and still doesn't exist everywhere.  The struggle for freedom of religion came about through wars that lasted at least a hundred years and only in some places.

One example that occurred in France was the Massacre of French Huguenot Protestants beginning on St. Bartholomew's Day in 1572.  It only began on that day.  The King of France led the massacre and his subjects followed.

quote

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was a brutal wave of violence against French Huguenots, instigated by political and religious tensions, resulting in thousands of deaths starting on August 24, 1572.

Background

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre occurred during a period of intense religious conflict in France, known as the French Wars of Religion. The massacre was primarily directed against the Huguenots, who were French Calvinist Protestants. Tensions had been escalating due to the political rivalry between Catholics and Protestants, particularly after the marriage of Margaret of Valois to Henry of Navarre (a Huguenot leader) on August 18, 1572, which was intended to foster peace between the two factions Wikipedia+1.

unquote

According to the booklet, Smokescreens, in the first three days over 10,000 were killed.  The bodies were thrown into the river and blood ran in the streets.

A similar massacre occurred in Ireland in 1642 where 40,000 Protestants were sacrificed by the Papists.

Even in the 20th century, massacres continued.  Maybe you never heard about the massacre of the Serbs by the Ustashi in Croatia with the involvement of Croatian priests, nuns, bishops and archbishops.  The booklet Smokescreens has a photograph of nuns marching with Croatian Nazi-Legionnaires (Ustashi).  You can get this booklet and others from Chick Publications online.

There is no comparison.  Rome was by far the dominant religion in the west and they ruled the people with an iron fist for centuries.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity.  The Holy Roman Inquisition was Satanically inspired, six hundred and fifty year long rule by torture and brutality.  What Martin Luther did with the Jews was nothing compared to the persecution of the Jews throughout Europe for at least 1,500 years.

You need to do some studying if that subject interests you.

Time would be better spent studying the Bible which was banned from the common people by Rome for centuries.

Let’s not pretend that virtue lived on either side of these ‘religious’ wars. Religion became an identifier for different groups who slaughtered each other. Theology was neither here nor there for them. The best form of government ever seen on this planet is secular democracy where people are free to worship any deity or not as they choose. 
 

 

[blackbird]

40 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Let’s not pretend that virtue lived on either side of these ‘religious’ wars. Religion became an identifier for different groups who slaughtered each other. Theology was neither here nor there for them. The best form of government ever seen on this planet is secular democracy where people are free to worship any deity or not as they choose. 
 

 

This is a brief overview of the Reformation in Europe.

quote

The Reformation was a 16th-century religious movement that challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, leading to the rise of Protestantism and profound social, political, and cultural changes across Europe.

Origins and Causes

The Reformation emerged in the early 16th century as a response to perceived corruption and abuses within the Roman Catholic Church, including the sale of indulgences and the accumulation of wealth and political power by the clergy Encyclopedia Britannica+1. Earlier reform movements, such as those led by John Wycliffe in England and Jan Hus in Bohemia, had already questioned church practices, laying the groundwork for later reformers Encyclopedia Britannica+1. The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg enabled rapid dissemination of ideas and translations of the Bible into vernacular languages, allowing ordinary people to access scripture directly Wikipedia+1.

Key Figures

Martin Luther: An Augustinian monk, Luther sparked the Reformation in 1517 with his 95 Theses, criticizing indulgences and emphasizing sola fide (justification by faith alone) and sola scriptura (scripture alone as the authority for faith), Wikipedia+2. He was excommunicated in 1521 but continued to translate the Bible into German and publish influential writings Ligonier Ministries.

John Calvin: A French theologian who developed Calvinism, emphasizing predestination and strict moral discipline. Calvin’s Geneva became a model for Protestant communities across Europe HISTORY+1.

Ulrich Zwingli: Led the Swiss Reformation, advocating reforms similar to Luther’s but with distinct theological interpretations HISTORY+1.

Henry VIII: Initiated the English Reformation by breaking from the Catholic Church to establish the Church of England, driven partly by political and personal motives HISTORY+1.

Other notable figures include John Knox in Scotland and reformers among the Huguenots in France Ligonier Ministries.

Theological Principles

The Reformation emphasized:

Justification by faith alone rather than by works Wikipedia+1.

Scripture as the sole authority in matters of faith and practice Ligonier Ministries.

The priesthood of all believers, reducing the hierarchical control of clergy HISTORY.

New ecclesiological structures, leading to the formation of Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and other Protestant denominations Wikipedia+1.

unquote

This explains the theological angle for the Reformation.  

Rome controlled Kings and Emperors up to that time.   Rome and the countries under their control tried to use force to stop the Reformation which is to be expected.  There was no such thing as freedom of religion until some countries started to change and wrestled control of the country away from the Catholic church and clergy.  Up to that time, the clergy controlled governments and the people were powerless.  Everyone's life was under the control of local priests who through the confessional knew everything that was going on in their area.  There was no such thing as individual freedom of belief and speech.  

The Thirty Years War from 1618 to 1648 resulted in 4.5 to 8 million deaths.  The population in parts of Germany was reduced by 50%.  The Holy Roman Empire was not reduced in size overnight and the cost in loss of life was huge.  Canadians can thank those that fought for individual rights over a period of time.  The Holy Roman Empire did not give up its power easily in parts of Europe.  Ireland chose to stick with Rome and broke away from the the United Kingdom.  Of course there may be other reasons why Ireland chose to be independent as well.  But the IRA continued its battle against Northern Ireland into the 20th century.

Edited Wednesday at 01:36 AM by blackbird

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The best form of government ever seen on this planet is secular democracy where people are free to worship any deity or not as they choose. 

You said it right there.  That is exactly one of the main reasons for the Reformation, although initially it was focused on individual interpretation of the Holy Scriptures (sola scriptura) and sola fide (faith alone) by the leaders of the Reformation such as Luther, Calvin, and the others.  The end result was freedom to worship any deity or none.  Prior to the Reformation, you were under the authority of the RC priesthood and clergy to obey the church.  That is a fact which you can read about in many sources.  That is why they had the Holy Roman Inquisition for 650 years.  Life was very hard for many people as the priests probed through the confessional and watched everything the people were doing and eventually the clergy grew wealthy by extracting wealth from the people.  The Reformation rejected that extensive control over everyone's life and eventually we got to where we are today with elected Parliaments and freedom of religion, speech, and association and the church was eliminated from control of government.

Edited Wednesday at 07:07 AM by blackbird

[John Johnston]

14 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

When I visited Italy I thought I’d be impressed by the Roman architecture but it was the Renaissance churches and Palladian mansions that caught my eye. While Venice may be an over-visited cliché at this stage, its beauty remains unrivalled in the West. In my opinion. 

Nice. 

9 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Let’s not pretend that virtue lived on either side of these ‘religious’ wars. Religion became an identifier for different groups who slaughtered each other. Theology was neither here nor there for them. The best form of government ever seen on this planet is secular democracy where people are free to worship any deity or not as they choose. 
 

 

Exactly. 

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, John Johnston said:

15 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Let’s not pretend that virtue lived on either side of these ‘religious’ wars. Religion became an identifier for different groups who slaughtered each other. Theology was neither here nor there for them. The best form of government ever seen on this planet is secular democracy where people are free to worship any deity or not as they choose. 
 

 

Exactly. 

The problem with this thinking is it downplays and denies what actually happened in history.  Most people don't know what happened for the past 1,500 years and believe whatever the Papists tell them.  Of course if you are a Papist or non-practicing follower of Romanism, you are glad to believe the narrative they tell you.  Many websites deny what happened in history and claim that those that opposed Rome were equally in the wrong.  This is the BIG LIE.  There are many sources where you can find the truth but the lies are widespread.  An important point is the Papists were in the vast majority and they controlled government and all the institutions of society.  Of course they were in a position to crush any dissidents or anyone who questioned the Roman church.  That is the way it was down through the centuries.  To claim Protestants were somehow equal opponents of Romanism is another BIG LIE.  They were a small minority and divided in different groups in different areas of Europe.  Rome viewed them as heretics that needed to be eliminated.  There was no reasoning with that.

I just read one website that denied a genocide even happened in Ireland.  The Irish massacre in 1642 killed 40,000 Protestants who were inhumanly sacrificed by the Papists.  Religious freedom was never respected and that is why these things happened.  But if you really want to know the truth, you need to make an effort to find out.  Don't believe everything you read on the internet.  

[blackbird]

20 hours ago, User said:

Well... figuring that you sit here saying only the KJV is right... I am not sure what point you are making here about them insistI

 

If you understand where the King James Version came from and what it is based on, you will understand.

The KJV is based upon the Received Text or Textus Receptus.  That was a Greek New Testament produced by Erasmus in the 1500s and some others.  It was based on the best copies of the original Greek manuscripts.  When the Byzantine Empire was invaded by the Muslims, many of the Greek scholars managed to escape to the west carrying the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with them.  These manuscripts were copies of the original manuscripts which were written by the original writers of the New Testament.  The original manuscripts were written in Greek in the places in the Greek and Roman world and addressed to the places the New Testament names them.  Examples are the epistle to the Romans, Epistle to the Galatians,  Epistle to the Ephesians, the Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians,  etc.  These were copied in those areas and then copies again and again.  Those are the places where the copies of the origjnal manuscripts came from and upon which the King James Version is based.   Modern versions are not based on those manuscripts, which by the way are in the majority and called the Majority manuscripts.

Modern versions are based largely on two corrupt manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, called the Vaticanus manuscripts and the Sinaiticus manuscripts.

 

[User]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you understand where the King James Version came from and what it is based on, you will understand.

A few corrections:

Erasmus did not use the "best manuscripts." He used a small number of relatively late manuscripts because earlier ones were not available to him.

The Textus Receptus is not the same thing as the Majority Text. They differ in numerous places.

Modern translations are not based on only Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They are based on thousands of Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations from the Church Fathers.

Calling Vaticanus and Sinaiticus "corrupt" is an assertion, not evidence. They are actually among the oldest biblical manuscripts we possess.

The KJV translators themselves never taught KJV-onlyism. In their preface, they explicitly affirmed that other translations are also the Word of God.

The real question is not "Which side likes the Bible?" It is "Which manuscript readings most likely reflect the originals?" Simply repeating "Textus Receptus good, Alexandrian bad" does not answer that historical question.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, User said:

A few corrections:

Erasmus did not use the "best manuscripts." He used a small number of relatively late manuscripts because earlier ones were not available to him.

The Textus Receptus is not the same thing as the Majority Text. They differ in numerous places.

Modern translations are not based on only Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They are based on thousands of Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations from the Church Fathers.

Calling Vaticanus and Sinaiticus "corrupt" is an assertion, not evidence. They are actually among the oldest biblical manuscripts we possess.

The KJV translators themselves never taught KJV-onlyism. In their preface, they explicitly affirmed that other translations are also the Word of God.

The real question is not "Which side likes the Bible?" It is "Which manuscript readings most likely reflect the originals?" Simply repeating "Textus Receptus good, Alexandrian bad" does not answer that historical question.

First I wish to thank you for telling me what you believe about this subject of the versions.   I have read and spent many hours on it in the past 40 or so years.  I have a number of books on it and read many, many articles.  

 I will try to post a small portion of a much larger essay on those two manuscripts with information from three of the world's best Bible scholars.

This is one of the articles at this link.  I would strongly urge you to read this carefully.

maranath.ca/OLDBEST.HTM

Here follows the first part of this essay.  I am sorry it is a little long, but it is extremely important to consider.

quote

INTRODUCTION

The vast worldwide new Bible version movement depends mainly for its credibility upon the character and integrity of two ancient Greek manuscripts; namely:

(a) VATICANUS - or "B" as it is often designated.

(b) SINAITICUS - or "Aleph"

Great and prestigious claims have been made by scholars for the antiquity, purity, neutrality, and authority of these two manuscripts; presently advertised as "THE OLDEST AND BEST."

MY PURPOSE

To conduct an inquiry regarding the validity of those claims; and to present convincing evidence that the multitude of new Bible versions are based upon Greek manuscripts that are so depraved, mutilated, and corrupted, that the truth of God has been changed into a lie.

IN OTHER WORDS

The greatest and most successful attack of the devil, against the church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the 20th century is the flood of corrupted versions now sweeping millions of professing Christians into confusion, apostasy, and into the world church of antichrist.

Since the time of Drs. Westcott and Hort, who headed the attack on the English Authorized Version of 1611; the vast majority of scholars have, apparently without any valid reason, accepted the false claims of superiority made on behalf of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

TESTIMONY OF THE MAJORITY REJECTED.

A very high percentage of the changes of the text in modern versions are based almost solely on the witness of these two documents inspite of a vast array of evidence of manuscripts, ancient versions, and church fathers to the contrary.

On occasions more numerous than the scholars know themselves, the change has been made upon the authority of only one of these documents, while the other clearly opposed the change.

Continuously the scholars exalt these and a few other ancient documents, over the Received Text, (Textus Receptus), which underlies the magnificent Authorized, (KJV), Bible of 1611. They do not well.

THIS INQUIRY IS FAR OVERDUE!

Millions of precious souls have been deluded into the fatal step of basing their hope of salvation upon the testimony of Bible versions that skillfully downplay the "Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

WESTCOTT AND HORT

Skillfully and deceptively these men have woven an aura of antiquity and majesty about these two witnesses that have so blinded the minds of scholars that they reject the testimony of approximately 90-95% of all Greek manuscripts when they oppose their testimony. On thousands of occasions they brand each other as liars. At this point, at least, we can accept their testimony against each other.

THREE WITNESSES AGAINST THE "OLDEST AND BEST"

OUR FIRST WITNESS AGAINST THE "OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS"

Herman Hoskier

"Codex B and its Allies", chiefly Sinaiticus, lists 3036 references where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradict each other in the four Gospels. These are very real differences, not a matter of punctuation or differences in spelling. In every case one or the other must be in error; and in a multitude of situations both of them err.

At least 7,000 contradictions

Another has estimated there must be at least 7,000 times in the New Testament where each accuses the other of being untrue.

The differences in the four Gospels alone amount to 3,036; as follows:

Matthew656+

Mark567+

Luke791+

John1022+

Total3036+

Codex B and its Allies P.1 Vol. 2

"It is high time that the bubble of Codex B should be pricked." H. Hoskier "Codex B and its Allies" P.1 Vol. 1 Preface.

Hoskier, a distinguished scholar, in a magnificent rebuttal of the outrageous claims made in favour of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, has published over 900 pages of scholarly refutation; and exposure of the erroneous claims of the scholars who have believed, without verification, that these were the "oldest and best."

"I present therefore an indictment against the manuscript B (Vaticanus) and against Westcott and Hort, subdivided into hundreds of separate counts.

I do not believe that the jurymen who will ultimately render a verdict have ever had the matter presented to them formally, legally, and in proper detail." H. Hoskier Codex B. Vol. 1 P.1 Preface

In his remarkable analysis Hoskier directs our attention to the fact that scribes of "Vaticanus and Sinaiticus" had obviously taken many liberties with their texts. His comment on Hort's outlandish claim that,

"Vaticanus is a neutral text", is Neutral text indeed, neutral rubbish.

The Bible speaks the final word.

The Word of God disqualifies and rejects witnesses that disagree with each other.

"And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death: and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together."

Mark 14:55 -59

Obviously these witnesses differing so radically with each other must be rejected and counted as either mistaken or malicious.

NOTE - Even the Lord's murderers would not, yea, could not accept divergent accounts as valid witnesses. Nor should modern scholars mutilate the Holy Bible on the basis of Greek Texts that owe their origin to the faulty, wavering, uncertain, contradictory evidence of the two, "Oldest and Best" manuscripts.

Yet that is precisely what so very many have done.

In the 20th century they have been presented with the "mummified" remains of manuscripts rejected by the church as unacceptable, hundreds of years ago. Every Christian that trusts a new version which is based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text, or Nestle's, or the ecletic text of the United Bible Societies, is accepting without challenging the versions, the testimony of false witnesses. i.e. those that are Biblically disqualified

THE TRAGEDY

Furthermore the Bible believer is constantly subjected to alterations, errors, and deletions, leaning in the direction of Roman Catholic errors. Many Protestant churches have come into bondage to Rome, by virtue of receiving and believing versions based upon the debased Codex B and it's Allies.

OUR SECOND WITNESS AGAINST THE "OLDEST AND BEST" MANUSCRIPTS

John William Burgon -

He was an illustrious scholar and a great authority on the ancient manuscripts, a steadfast defender of the infallibility of the Scriptures. In 1860, while Chaplain to an English congregation in Rome, he personally inspected Codex B (Vaticanus).

In 1862 he inspected the manuscripts in St. Catherine's Monastery; where Tischendorf had "found" Sinaiticus. Concerning the manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Burgon said;

"I am utterly disinclined to believe," continues Dean Burgon, "so grossly improbable does it seem - that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired."

"I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years, much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a wastepaper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text has to be remodeled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them..."

Concerning B and ALEPH his remarks are as follows.

"As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest copying - persevered in for any number of centuries - could by possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed to fresh depraving influences."
Rev. Revised P. 318

"If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and ALEPH been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight, but in the meantime, behold their very antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; and (strange to relate) is even considered to constitute a sufficient reason why they should enjoy not merely extra-ordinary consideration, but the actual surrender of the critical judgment." (Revision Revised P.319)

Burgon continues;

"What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices A, B, C, D, -- especially of B, D, and Aleph. And because this is a matter which lies at root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of B, & C., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that B, D , and Aleph (Sinaiticus), are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: -- exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: -- have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, -- which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD."
(Revision Revised p.15, 16)

"With regret we record our conviction that these accomplished scholars, (Westcott and Hort) have succeeded in producing a text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the invention of printing."
(Dean Burgon. Revision Revised p. 25-26)

With regard to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

"We are able to show -- that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the Mss. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those 'corrected', i.e. corrupted copies, which are known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the church." (Dean Burgon)

"Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositaries of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy."
(Burgon Revision Revised p. 30)

"The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph, (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact."

"These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort's position that--'A text formed' by 'taking Codex B as the sole authority', 'would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document' (p.251), -- we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary, by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal."
(Revision Revised p. 316)

This illustrious scholar so greatly feared by Westcott and Hort, that after a few feeble rebuttals, they tended to ignore the battering ram criticisms of their attack on the Word of God; now calls for testimony from one of the Westcott and Hort demolition team of "revisers" of the pure English Bible.

OUR THIRD WITNESS AGAINST THE "OLDEST AND BEST" MANUSCRIPTS

Prebendary H. Scrivener M.A.

This gifted scholar now approaches the very manuscripts used by Westcott and Hort as the foundation of their Greek text, on which so many new Bible versions rely for their authority. With sledge hammer might he delivers terrible blows at the corrupt manuscripts that underlie all versions, which are based on the Greek texts, of Westcott and Hort, Nestle's, or the eclectic texts of the United Bible Societies.

WHO is this man that arises from the ranks of Westcott and Hort team to destroy the authority of the debased and corrupted manuscripts used by his colleagues to finally deceive millions of professing Christians and bring them into the great and final apostasy? John William Burgon, an outstanding authority on Biblical manuscripts, describes Scrivener as "THE MOST LEARNED OF THE REVISIONIST BODY." That is the Westcott and Hort team of "revisers."
(Revision Revised p. 30)

Prebendary H. Scrivener M.A.

He was the only really competent textual critic of the entire revising body that worked on the team of Westcott and Hort.

It is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two thirds of those present. Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding articles. (Dean Burgon Revision Revised p. 231)

Burgon recognizes Scrivener as the leader of a few intelligent faithful scholars who were strongly opposed to the vicious attack on the Authorized (K.J.V.) Version, by Drs. Westcott and Hort and their hand picked majority. He was obviously, powerfully opposed to many of the outrageous wresting of Holy Scripture that the committee voted to be the Word of God -- by a show of hands.

Scrivener remained on the committee to the finish of the English Revised Version of 1881.

How his soul must have writhed within him as he found his scholarly propositions to be constantly voted down by persons, who being themselves unqualified to judge the issues, blindly followed the powerful lead of Drs. Westcott and Hort.   unquote

For the whole essay go to the link I gave above.

The second essay which is directly related is also very important.  It explains the thinking, theories, and theology of Westcott and Hort, the two men behind the Revised Greek New Testament produced in 1881 upon which all modern versions take their lead.

maranath.ca/ttt.htm

It seems modern Bible editors and producers blindly swallowed the claim that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts were better because they might have been a little older than the majority of manuscripts.  This was a fatal mistake which is well explained with the evidence in these two essays.  There are also two books that deal with this issue quite well.  One is New Age Bible Versions by G. Riplinger and the other is Final Authority.  

I repeat the website which has this article about the two manuscripts in question.

maranath.ca/OLDBEST.HTM

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 12:17 AM by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 6/24/2026 at 1:41 PM, blackbird said:

The problem with this thinking is it downplays and denies what actually happened in history.  Most people don't know what happened for the past 1,500 years and believe whatever the Papists tell them.  Of course if you are a Papist or non-practicing follower of Romanism, you are glad to believe the narrative they tell you.  Many websites deny what happened in history and claim that those that opposed Rome were equally in the wrong.  This is the BIG LIE.  There are many sources where you can find the truth but the lies are widespread.  An important point is the Papists were in the vast majority and they controlled government and all the institutions of society.  Of course they were in a position to crush any dissidents or anyone who questioned the Roman church.  That is the way it was down through the centuries.  To claim Protestants were somehow equal opponents of Romanism is another BIG LIE.  They were a small minority and divided in different groups in different areas of Europe.  Rome viewed them as heretics that needed to be eliminated.  There was no reasoning with that.

I just read one website that denied a genocide even happened in Ireland.  The Irish massacre in 1642 killed 40,000 Protestants who were inhumanly sacrificed by the Papists.  Religious freedom was never respected and that is why these things happened.  But if you really want to know the truth, you need to make an effort to find out.  Don't believe everything you read on the internet.  

This ‘we good they bad’ obsession you have leads you into all these nonsensical tangles. You think Protestant rule in Ireland was benign and tolerant and gave the Catholic majority religious freedom? Religion became a tribal badge. Thank God it’s almost done in Ireland, at least with Christianity.

Edited 7 hours ago by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

This ‘we good they bad’ obsession you have leads you into all these nonsensical tangles. You think Protestant rule in Ireland was benign and tolerant and gave the Catholic majority religious freedom? Religion became a tribal badge. Thank God it’s almost done in Ireland, at least with Christianity.

I never said the "we good they bad" was the purpose of talking about the history.  You still hold the belief that the past should be ignored or not believed I guess if it does not fit in with your religious or cultural background you grew up in.   I am not laying the blame on anyone for what happened in the past.  We can't control what happened in history.   But perhaps we can learn something about it and not go around totally ignorant.   But I do think that most people know nothing about history of the RC church.  They have a very bright  naive history of something that was really dark and barbarian compared with the way things are today.  Today we have lots of freedom of religion, speech, beliefs, and association which never existed for most of the past 2,000 years since Christianity began.  Today is definitely not how life was in the past.  Perhaps it might help to understand the world was not the way we were told it was back in history by many people and groups.  Whether it has much to do with what one believes today regarding religious matters, I don't know.  That is not the point.  The point is to uphold the truth.  Truth matters and if that helps someone, all the better.  

It sort of like growing up in Germany today and not being told one's ancestors were involved in or worked for the Third Reich or Naziism and their Holocaust of the six million Jews of Europe and various atrocities.  Should one know about the real history?  Of course.  Perhaps then these things can be avoided in the future.

So yes there is a dark history associated with the Notre Dame Cathedral.

Edited 6 hours ago by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I never said the "we good they bad" was the purpose of talking about the history.  You still hold the belief that the past should be ignored or not believed I guess if it does not fit in with your religious or cultural background you grew up in.   I am not laying the blame on anyone for what happened in the past.  We can't control what happened in history.   But perhaps we can learn something about it and not go around totally ignorant.   But I do think that most people know nothing about history of the RC church.  They have a very bright  naive history of something that was really dark and barbarian compared with the way things are today.  Today we have lots of freedom of religion, speech, beliefs, and association which never existed for most of the past 2,000 years since Christianity began.  Today is definitely how life was in the past.  Perhaps it might help to understand the world is not the way we are told it is by many people.  Whether it has much to do with what one believes today regarding religious matters, I don't know.  That is not the point.  The point is to uphold the truth.  Truth matters and if that helps someone, all the better.  

As an exercise why don’t you list the many wrongs committed by Protestants in Ireland? It would be good for you to do that both as a Christian and as a human being. Shouldn’t every person start with the sins on their side? Yes, the RC church was awful but of course it was not alone in its wrongdoing. That’s what you need to get into your head. 

Edited 6 hours ago by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

As an exercise why don’t you list the many wrongs committed by Protestants in Ireland?

The topic here is about the dark history surrounding the Notre Dame Cathedral.

The truth is when the Reformation began in parts of western Europe, Rome responded strongly and tried to eradicate any opposition (heretics).

But Protestants were not the only people they tried to eradicate in history.  

quote

Across many different regions of Eurasia and Africa, Jews, Muslims, and non-Orthodox Christians have lived under Orthodox Christian rule; Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Zoroastrians have lived under Muslim rule; Christians and Muslims have lived under Buddhist and Hindu rule; and Jews and Muslims have lived under Coptic Christian rule, among other examples. 

Only in the key Western European polities that I examine in my article did the entire population, across numerous neighboring countries and societies, publicly and nominally adhere to a single religion and sect, namely, the Roman Catholic Church. This was the result of the eradication of Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians over several centuries. 

Moreover, four of these polities, namely, England, France, Portugal, and Spain, later became the greatest Western powers. They shaped the rest of the world through their colonial empires. The momentous and exceptional religious demographic transformation in their history has global consequences. The Americas and the Oceania became the most Christian continents on earth, which is a direct consequence of the late medieval story I tell in my article. If Jews and Muslims of England, France, Portugal, and Spain were not completely eradicated, we could have had very sizeable Jewish and Muslim populations among the Western Europeans who settled the Americas and Oceania.

 The virulent backlash against immigration and religious diversity in Western European countries that we observe at present also has to do with what I explain in my article. These European countries achieved an unprecedented level of religious demographic homogeneity at least five centuries ago if not earlier, and therefore the appearance of non-Christian people and public manifestations of their non-Christian cultures and religions in Western Europe come as an extraordinary shock that they have difficulty dealing with. Against this historical background, it is somewhat unsurprising to me that it is in this corner of the world that there have been many attempts to ban religious headscarves, minarets, call to the prayers, circumcision of boys, and ritual animal slaughter. You had the church, the mosque, the synagogue, and various temples in close proximity in places like Egypt, Lebanon, India, and Russia for centuries if not millennia, so they have a good idea of what the coexistence of different religious customs entails, but that is not the case for much of Western Europe until the recent waves of migration, precisely because historic communities of Jews and Muslims were completely eradicated in the late medieval period.   unquote

How Medieval Ethnoreligious Cleansing Shaped Western Europe | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs