MartialArt2:


Op, can you tell the origin of Christianity? I guess the answer is there

The thread link below will give you a clue to the answer:

https://www.nairaland.com/2767149/lamp-dark-full-documentary-untold#43392831

PastorAIO:


But you too came with opinion on the Waldensinians nah?

Make sure you provide as much evidence as you demand of Ifeness for your claim that Waldensianians created the bible.

I did not say that highlighted!


For further understanding of the post you quooted
Check the link here:

Scholar8200:
Go to http://www.fellowshipofthemartyrs.com/articles/44-about-the-church/97-waldensians-the-true-history-of-the-christian-church-

PastorAIO:


The Waldensians (also known variously as Waldenses (/wɔːlˈdɛnsiːz, wɒl-/), Vallenses, Valdesi or Vaudois) are a Christian movement and religious cultural group which appeared first in Lyon and spread to the Cottian Alps in the late 1170s.

There is an error here! Waldo popularized the Vallenses/vaudois but he was not the founder of the movement!
See:
http://2x2friendsworkers.proboards.com/thread/15/peter-waldo-1170-founder-vaudois

Today, the Waldensian movement is centered on Piedmont in northern Italy, while small communities are also found in southern Italy, Argentina, Germany, the United States, and Uruguay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

Personally I didn't know that the bible was written in the 12th century.

No it wasnt.
Also see https://www.nairaland.com/2937501/1-john-5-7-real

Scholar8200:
There is an error here! Waldo popularized the Vallenses/vaudois but he was not the founder of the movement!
See:
http://2x2friendsworkers.proboards.com/thread/15/peter-waldo-1170-founder-vaudois
No it wasnt.
Also see https://www.nairaland.com/2937501/1-john-5-7-real

That is not evidence of anything. What you will do is show a document making reference to Vaudois in the 2nd century A.D.

If you can't do this then get ready to be dismissed as a pseudo-scholar nut job.

PastorAIO:


That is not evidence of anything. What you will do is show a document making reference to Vaudois in the 2nd century A.D.

If you can't do this then get ready to be dismissed as a pseudo-scholar nut job.

Interesting! You willingly accept wikipedia's position sans such evidence and on seeing a superior account suddenly request for a document of someone referring to the Vaudois in 2AD!

The evidence i have is tied on 1John 5:7 quoted by Tertullian (155-220AD) which at that time was only found in the Vaudois Bible then.
http://greggfetter..in/2013/07/is-there-perfect-bible-is-bible-inerrant.html

http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=783.335;wap2

If you would counter this then give your proof of the source of Tertullian's reference to 1 John 5:7 and that there was a RCC bible that could have furnished Tertullian with that verse

Scholar8200:
Interesting! You willingly accept wikipedia's position sans such evidence and on seeing a superior account suddenly request for a document of someone referring to the Vaudois in 2AD!

The evidence i have is tied on 1John 5:7 quoted by Tertullian (155-220AD) which at that time was only found in the Vaudois Bible then.
http://greggfetter..in/2013/07/is-there-perfect-bible-is-bible-inerrant.html

http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=783.335;wap2

If you would counter this then give your proof of the source of Tertullian's reference to 1 John 5:7 and that there was a RCC bible that could have furnished Tertullian with that verse

you will show me where I quoted wikipedia where wikipedia didn't make reference to an authoritative source.

Tertullian will make reference to the trinity because the concept of the trinity was already being discussed in christianity in his time. At the council of Nicea it is also referenced, without mentioning 1John 5:7. There were many theological concept discussed in christianity in that era that had no biblical source. For instance the divinity or christ, the humanity of christ, the relationship between the divinity and humanity of christ etc etc etc.

Do you have any documents references the Vaudois in the 2nd century?

.

PastorAIO:


you will show me where I quoted wikipedia where wikipedia didn't make reference to an authoritative source.

See below and kindly highlight an authoritative source therein!

PastorAIO:


The Waldensians (also known variously as Waldenses (/wɔːlˈdɛnsiːz, wɒl-/), Vallenses, Valdesi or Vaudois) are a Christian movement and religious cultural group which appeared first in Lyon and spread to the Cottian Alps in the late 1170s. Today, the Waldensian movement is centered on Piedmont in northern Italy, while small communities are also found in southern Italy, Argentina, Germany, the United States, and Uruguay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians
Personally I didn't know that the bible was written in the 12th century.

I wonder what is authoritative about a website making this prefatory plead:


[hide]This article has multiple issues. [size=14pt]Please help improve it[/size] or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (February 2016)
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (February 2016)
-Wikipedia

Tertullian will make reference to the trinity because the concept of the trinity was already being discussed in christianity in his time. At the council of Nicea it is also referenced, without mentioning 1John 5:7.
There were many theological concept discussed in christianity in that era that had no biblical source. For instance the divinity or christ, the humanity of christ, the relationship between the divinity and humanity of christ etc etc etc.

Cyprian around 250AD, just like Tertullian, made his quote of that passage from the Bible, prefixing it with the phrase,"it is written"! Considering the fact that the first Nicea council was held more than a century after Cyprian,it is clear that there was that had the Bible and already established firm belief in its teaching being not under the RCC or her council established doctrines.

Do you have any documents references the Vaudois in the 2nd century?

I am still searching. The accounts given by various, trustworthy sites viz a viz the obvious attesting testimony of history and reality were the sources. The Vaudois were known by many names , some derogatory, (Vallenses,People of the Valley etc) hence requesting a document that references that name is impracticable!

See this from a historian:

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=5utTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=proof+of+the+existence+of+the+vaudois+in+2nd+century&source=bl&ots=LeG2ZLQmg_&sig=u_ZsGqBUpY6CVztSyCTmQAeM_Ek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj74OPv167LAhWCWBoKHTIfBHcQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20the%20vaudois%20in%202nd%20century&f=false

And this from an Author's defense(no time for games or errors here):
http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Answers2Objections/Answers2-3.htm

Meanwhile you do this:
Leave out wikipedia and prove using authentic sources that Peter Waldo was the founder of the Vaudois/People of the valley and that there was nothing like that before the 12th century bearing in mind that Lyons (France) is not the Piedmont valley(Italy, original base of the People of the Valley/Vallenses)!

As per the topic of the Thread, I think Roman Catholicism leans more in the direction of Islam considering their Catechism 841:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

This is in direct contradiction of the Bible's position that:

23 Whoever denies and repudiates the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses and acknowledges the Son has the Father also:
1 John 2:23

Scholar8200:

See below and kindly highlight an authoritative source therein!



I wonder what is authoritative about a website making this prefatory plead:


[hide]This article has multiple issues. [size=14pt]Please help improve it[/size] or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (February 2016)
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (February 2016)
-Wikipedia

Wikipedia has the transparency to notify you when it's facts are disputed. That adds to it's trustworthiness.

What is not factual inside the part that I quoted? I'll repeat it:

The Waldensians (also known variously as Waldenses (/wɔːlˈdɛnsiːz, wɒl-/), Vallenses, Valdesi or Vaudois) are a Christian movement and religious cultural group which appeared first in Lyon and spread to the Cottian Alps in the late 1170s. Today, the Waldensian movement is centered on Piedmont in northern Italy, while small communities are also found in southern Italy, Argentina, Germany, the United States, and Uruguay.

I've looked on a Waldensian website (yes, this organisation still exists and unless you want to say you're a member and now it's history more than it's other members …) and this is what they have to say:

History

Founded in the Middle Ages

The Waldensian Church originated with the preaching of the merchant Valdo (Waldo of Lyons, from whom the church’s name originates), 1140-1217. He lived during the same period as Saint Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226). Like Francis, Waldo also believed in the value of the evangelical poverty of the early church and, after a profound spiritual crisis, gave all his assets to the poor in order to freely preach the gospel.

http://www.waldensian.org/3-history/

These are not some people lost in the mists of history. They still exist. They claim to have started in the 12th century. Just like Wikipedia says.

I wonder, Are you a Waldensian?

Do you know something about waldensians and their history that current members don't know.

PastorAIO:


Wikipedia has the transparency to notify you when it's facts are disputed. That adds to it's trustworthiness.

What is not factual inside the part that I quoted? I'll repeat it:

The Waldensians (also known variously as Waldenses (/wɔːlˈdɛnsiːz, wɒl-/), Vallenses, Valdesi or Vaudois) are a Christian movement and religious cultural group which appeared first in Lyon and spread to the Cottian Alps in the late 1170s. Today, the Waldensian movement is centered on Piedmont in northern Italy, while small communities are also found in southern Italy, Argentina, Germany, the United States, and Uruguay.

I thought we were talking about reference to authoritative facts? Now that prefatory statement they made already tells you that the article is not authoritative!

I've looked on a Waldensian website (yes, this organisation still exists and unless you want to say you're a member and now it's history more than it's other members …) and this is what they have to say:

History

Founded in the Middle Ages

The Waldensian Church originated with the preaching of the merchant Valdo (Waldo of Lyons, from whom the church’s name originates), 1140-1217. He lived during the same period as Saint Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226). Like Francis, Waldo also believed in the value of the evangelical poverty of the early church and, after a profound spiritual crisis, gave all his assets to the poor in order to freely preach the gospel.

http://www.waldensian.org/3-history/

These are not some people lost in the mists of history. They still exist. They claim to have started in the 12th century. Just like Wikipedia says.

I wonder, Are you a Waldensian?

Do you know something about waldensians and their history that current members don't know.

The Waldenses (from France started under Peter Waldo) merged with the Valdenses/People of the Valley (in Italy). The former started under Peter Waldo in the 12th century, but not the latter, though history reports a merger of both, it appears they still maintained their identities.

This partial merger explains the dichotomous opinion recorded by Wikisource (I chose this since you respect their records):

There are two strongly contested opinions respecting the antiquity and derivation of this Church in the Wilderness. It is maintained on one side, that she has preserved her apostolic descent, intact and separate, from the earliest age of Christianity to the present time, without any mixture with other churches, and in total exemption from the errors which have clouded the faith of her Christian sisters. On this side we have the opinion of many eminent writers on prophecy, who point out the Vaudois church as the Western Witness; and also the unwilling testimony of several Roman Catholic authors, who record the tradition that the "heresy," as they term it, [size=14pt]"existed in these valleys from all antiquity[/size]."[1] The Vaudois themselves maintained, in all their appeals made at various times to their sovereigns, that the religion they followed had been preserved from father to son, and from generation to generation, "from all time, and from time immemorial."[2] Most of their historians support the same opinion. "The Vaudois of the Alps," writes one of the latest, "are, according to our belief, the primitive Christians,

[27]

and heirs of the primitive Church, preserved in these valleys secure from the alterations introduced successively by the Roman Catholics into the evangelical faith."[3] Beza pronounces them to be "the seed of the pure Christian Church, - being those who have been appointed by the wontlerful providence of God, whom none of the storms by which the world has been shaken, nor persecution, have been able to prevail on to yield a voluntary submission to Roman tyranny and idolatry." An English historian observes, "With the dawn of history we discover some simple Christians in the valleys of the Alps, where they still exist under the ancient name of the Vaudois, who by the light of the New Testament saw the extraordinary contrast between the purity of primitive times and the vices of the gorgeous hierarchy which surrounded them."[4] The late Rev. Dr. Gilly, than whom no one could have a better right to speak on the subject, in his Preface to the former Edition of the present work, observes: "Whether the Protestant inhabitants of the valleys on each side of the Alps, between the great mountain ranges of Mount Cenis and Mount Viso, can be proved by documentary evidence to derive their Christianity from primitive times or not, this is certain, that from very remote periods there has been a Christianity in this region, different from that of Rome, in the dark, mediæval, and modern ages; and this has been handed down to the present era by a succession of martyrs and confessors, and of other faithful men. The faith and discipline of these Alpine Christians may, at times, have been more or less true to the gospel rule; but their creed and church government have always contained articles

[28]

opposed to the pretensions and errors of Rome, as far as we can judge from documents that can be traced up to the fourth century at least. If, therefore, we find truth and evangelical holiness among the Waldenses of Piedmont, when other professors of the gospel in different ages and places went wrong, in the fourth century for example, and again in the ninth and eleventh, in the twelfth and thirteenth, and in the sixteenth century - if we can take epochs at random, and still find vestiges of the pure gospel at the foot of the Cottian Alps, long before the Reformation - we may conclude that the gospel was transmitted, and preserved among them, from primitive times. It is surely more probable that the "men of the valleys," shepherds and husbandmen, should retain the truth, as it was first delivered to them, than that they should be able to discover it amidst the darkness of the twelfth century, when all Christendom was departing farther and farther from the light, under the false teaching of subtle schoolmen, and ambitious and licentious hierarchs.

"At such a remote period did our Piedmontese valleys exhibit the stamp of early evangelization."

We need not multiply authorities, or nothing would be more easy; but we cannot refrain from adding that of one who will not be accused of partiality towards any form of Christianity: "It is an extraordinary fact," observes Voltaire, after affirming the antiquity of the Vaudois Church as the remains of the first Christians of Gaul, "that these men, [size=15pt]almost unknown to the rest of the world[/size], should constantly have persevered, from time immemorial, in usages which have been changed everywhere else."[5]

[29]{speaker here was a neutral atheist, the amplified part further explains why little is said of them! }



We will now say a few words on the opinions of the other party on this contested point, who, whilst bearing an equally favourable testimony to the purity and fidelity of the Vaudois Church, assign her a more recent origin, maintaining that she received both her faith and her appellation from the merchant Reformer of Lyons, Peter Waldo, of whom we shall speak hereafter. They, too, quote from the Roman Catholic writers. Allian de l'Ile, or de Lille, who lived at the end of the twelfth century, speaks of the Vaudois as "wolves in sheep's clothing, called Valdenses, from the name of their leader, Valdus." Pierre de Vaus-Cernay, an author known at the beginning of the thirteenth century, styles them, "the heretics called Valdenses, after the name of one Valdus of Lyons." And a few of the more modern historians take the same side, considering it a sufficient honour for the Vaudois Church "to be descended from a simple layman of Lyons, whose piety, moderation, and courage may serve us for a perpetual example, and to have brought out the truths of the Gospel three ages before the Reformation, as well as to have preserved it since that time amid sufferings and privation."[6] And high praise it un doubtedly is; but we must not therefore omit to state the objections raised against this view of the subject, even by those who equally esteem the intrepid Reformer of Lyons. Again we refer to our opponents - for instance, to the bull of Pope Urban II., which sets forth that the Vaudois had been "infected with heresy from the year 1096," long before the birth of Peter Waldo. We may also again quote the assertion of Pierre de Vaus-Cernay, who in his laudatory history of Simon de Montfort, observes, that "this great Defender of the Faith especially signalized himself in his extermination

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Waldensian_Church_in_the_valleys_of_Piedmont/Chapter_I

Now note that the reference to 12th century and is where Peter Waldo of Lyons come up.

Christianity is a "Mocking" word coined in Antioch for the followers of the man who died on the Cross. There were 12 followers which included Simon Peter, James and John etc. The Bible tells that Christ covenanted to build His Church on "Petros" being Peter in Rome. That Church established by Covenant of Christ was a Universal meaning Catholic Church. After the Spanish Armada, Anglo Saxson opted out of what used to be general catholic church and formed The Anglican Communion. Thus leaving the Balance in Rome as The Roman Catholic Church. In other words, The Roman Catholic, The Anglican, The American Church based on the Pilgrim Progress, The Penticostal Churches etc are all established from Rome and they all use The Septuagint,The Vulgate and The KJV Bible to relate to Christ. IJN AMEN!!!!

orisa37:
Christianity is a "Mocking" word coined in Antioch for the followers of the man who died on the Cross. There were 12 followers which included Simon Peter, James and John etc. The Bible tells that Christ covenanted to build His Church on "Petros" being Peter in Rome. That Church established by Covenant of Christ was a Universal meaning Catholic Church. After the Spanish Armada, Anglo Saxson opted out of what used to be general catholic church and formed The Anglican Communion. Thus leaving the Balance in Rome as The Roman Catholic Church. In other words, The Roman Catholic, The Anglican, The American Church based on the Pilgrim Progress, The Penticostal Churches etc are all established from Rome and they all use The Septuagint,The Vulgate and The KJV Bible to relate to Christ. IJN AMEN!!!!

Jesus NEVER said HE will be building His Church on Peter else you want to edit this verses:

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Ephesians 2:20

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
[/b]1 Corinth 3:11

On a further thought, they are not thesame. Christianity, The Faithful is wholly Biblical. Roman Catholic, is a nonentity.

Scholar8200:

I thought we were talking about reference to authoritative facts? Now that prefatory statement they made already tells you that the article is not authoritative!

This man, you don't know that I've been trained in the sniffing out of wuruwuru with none less than Olaadegbu himself. Do you think you can twist more than him.? Okay let's go…

I said I found wikipedia TRUSTWORTHY precisely because it will alert you when it is not on solid authoritative ground.
That doesn't mean that I take wikipedia to be an authority. Transparency does not equal authoritative. I'm sure you're not actually that stupid. You're just trying to twist. Try harder.

I asked you if the part of the wiki page I quoted was wrong, and if so what is your proof of that. I'll repeat my request. Here is the quote:

The Waldensians (also known variously as Waldenses (/wɔːlˈdɛnsiːz, wɒl-/), Vallenses, Valdesi or Vaudois) are a Christian movement and religious cultural group which appeared first in Lyon and spread to the Cottian Alps in the late 1170s. Today, the Waldensian movement is centered on Piedmont in northern Italy, while small communities are also found in southern Italy, Argentina, Germany, the United States, and Uruguay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

If you have any proof that this is inaccurate, please supply it like a true Scholar not a nut-job.

Once again I'll say that Wikipedia's transparency makes it more trustworthy than your references thus far. That does not make wikipedia an authority.

The Waldenses (from France started under Peter Waldo) merged with the Valdenses/People of the Valley (in Italy). The former started under Peter Waldo in the 12th century, but not the latter, though history reports a merger of both, it appears they still maintained their identities.

What is your basis for saying this? Again, do you have historical proof or documentation? What is the difference between Waldo and Vaudois? Do they not all mean 'from the valley'? There are certain words that you'll find throughout europe due to their origin in Latin. These include Valley, Vaudois, Valdo, Waldo, Valdez Vaux. Peter Waldo simply means Peter from the valley. Vaudois means People from the valley. So you'll have a hard time to try to cook up a difference between them in the hope of fooling me.

This partial merger explains the dichotomous opinion recorded by Wikisource (I chose this since you respect their records):

Hahahahah! How silly!! So the only source you could find for your rubbish was wikipedia.
Okay, two things. First I want to explain why I'm extra cautious with everything you say and then I want to explain wikipedia to you a little bit.

1) I asked you for evidence for what you were saying a while back and this was your response:

Scholar8200:

I am still searching. The accounts given by various, trustworthy sites viz a viz the obvious attesting testimony of history and reality were the sources. The Vaudois were known by many names , some derogatory, (Vallenses,People of the Valley etc) hence requesting a document that references that name is impracticable!

YOU ARE STILL SEARCHING KE!!! You are still searching. followed but an excuse to say providing evidence is not possible or 'impracticable' to use your term. So obviously you arrived at your conclusion without any evidence. You're now trying to go seeking for evidence, you're 'still searching'. Or maybe you've quit searching now and just opted to use wikipedia. (only because you know I respect their records abi )

2)Okay, wikipedia now. It seems you do not understand how wikipedia works. Any nut-job can write anything on wikipedia, but other interested parties will flag a claim that has no evidence or is just plain nutty. Also wikipages need to be well written. That is where the 'prefatory plead' comes in. I asked a simple question which you failed to answer. What is factually inaccurate about the part of the wikipage that I quoted?

Let's look at the 'prefatory plead'.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (February 2016)
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (February 2016)

If a section needs to be rewritten that doesn't mean it is factually inaccurate. It could just be badly written. Wiki explain what it is they want from their lead sections very clearly:

The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

Having said that that doesn't mean that the only problems that the page will face are problems of style and organisation. Like I said before it is a constant battle to keep nutjobs from contributing to a page. Check this out from the Discussion page of the article:

Should I bother posting the source or are the Catholics/French still going to pretend the names: "Waldenses"/"Waldesians"/ "valdesi" and so forth are from so-called: 'Peter Waldo' rather the VALLEY PEOPLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you would sign up for an account and talk through this, providing verifiable and reputable sources for this very same edit that keeps popping up under anonymous IPs. Until that happens, I think you can expect that this edit will continue to be reverted, since more than one editor has reverted this before. Thanks for understanding. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you can immediately recognise this kind of nut job first by the refusal to be bothered to post a source, and secondly by the Catholic baiting that they all seem to have in common.
As the Editor points out these people are relentless and they have to be constantly vigilant.

I'll address the rest of what you said in a subsequent post.

There are two strongly contested opinions respecting the antiquity and derivation of this Church in the Wilderness. It is maintained on one side, that she has preserved her apostolic descent, intact and separate, from the earliest age of Christianity to the present time, without any mixture with other churches, and in total exemption from the errors which have clouded the faith of her Christian sisters. On this side we have the opinion of many eminent writers on prophecy, who point out the Vaudois church as the Western Witness; and also the unwilling testimony of several Roman Catholic authors, who record the tradition that the "heresy," as they term it, [size=14pt]"existed in these valleys from all antiquity[/size]."[1] The Vaudois themselves maintained, in all their appeals made at various times to their sovereigns, that the religion they followed had been preserved from father to son, and from generation to generation, "from all time, and from time immemorial."[2] Most of their historians support the same opinion. "The Vaudois of the Alps," writes one of the latest, "are, according to our belief, the primitive Christians,

[27]

This is a common thing. Too common in fact that it is to be expected. Of course they never have documentation to prove their claims to antiquity.

Other groups that make fantastic claims to antiquity include:

Freemasonry

Every one at all acquainted with the claims of Freemasonry knows that it professes to have existed in the days of Solomon; and it is claimed that Solomon himself was a Freemason, and that John the Baptist and John the Evangelist were Freemasons. Indeed, the writers frequently trace it back as coeval with the creation itself. Masons have claimed for their institution an antiquity antecedent to human government; and from this they have argued that they have a right to execute the penalties of their oaths, because Masonry is older than government. Now an examination will show that this claim is utterly false. Their own highest authorities now pronounce it to be false; and still these claims are kept up, and their oaths and ceremonies, and the whole structure of the institution profess the greatest antiquity.

Solomon, for instance, figures as a Freemason everywhere in their ceremonies.

Their lodges are dedicated to St. John; and in the third degree there is a scene professed to have been enacted in the temple and at the building of the Temple of Solomon.

Now, all this is utterly fallacious, a false pretense, and a swindle; because it is the obtaining of money from those who join them under false pretenses.

Steinbrenner, a great Masonic historian, after much research, with manifest candor, says that Speculative Freemasonry--which is the only form of Freemasonry now existing--dates no further back than 1717.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/1869Freemasonry/freem_chap13.htm

The Alchemists, They claimed that their art goes all the way back to Adam

The Gnostics, They made claims to have the true knowledge of Jesus' teachings going all the way back to Jesus himself.

And of course The Catholic church itself which also claims the apostolic tradition. A Claim that you would be ever ready to deny them while you support another claim which has less evidence.

Igbo people, today in nigeria there are many Igbo people who claim to be descended from Lost Jews.

Claims of antiquity lend authority to movements especially new movements.

Wikipedia references Samuel Moreland book written in the 17th century based on hearsay and also J. Wiley's History of the Waldenses written in the 19th century.

What these books fail to address is why there is no record of the Catholic church oppressing these Waldensian guy prior to the 12th century. It is only in the 12th century the persecutions began. However we know that the catholic church was very vigilant in seeking out heresies and oppressing them. They attacked the Gnostics and the oppression is well documented. They oppressed the Arians too. Church history talks about their attacking one heresy after another. But nothing about attacking Waldensians. not until 12th century. Why?

What do modern historians have to say about Waldensians and about their histories written by people like Moreland and Wylie?

The origin of the Waldenses has been a matter of great dispute. They themselves allege, and their critics admit they have long held that allegation, that the group of believers has persisted in the remote valleys of the Maritime Alps since the days of Constantine. Misinterpretation of the dates of their documents by early writers has not strengthened their allegation; and it seems that their authentic records may not go back beyond the thirteenth century.

Light in the Dark Ages, Edman


The problem with their claims is that dates have been altered and lies inserted here and there.

To the argument for the high antiquity of the sect from their writings which are preserved in manuscripts, the general reply is that these works belong to the 15th century, or later, and are affected by that Hussite influence to which reference is made above. The most plausible of these arguments has been derived from the metrical work {in the Romance language), entitled The Noble Lesson (Nobla Leyczon), the opening l1nes of which (in the first printed edition) give the date of 1100 years since Christ, and also the name "Vaudes" whence it has been inferred that the sect existed under that name, nearly a century before Waldo. But an inspection of the manuscripts in the Cambridge University Library has proved the true reading to be 1400 years ("mil et 4 cent ans" instead of "mile cent ans", thus bring1ng the date of the poem down to the fifteenth century.16

http://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=get_acthesis&InfoID=1394478159

and heirs of the primitive Church, preserved in these valleys secure from the alterations introduced successively by the Roman Catholics into the evangelical faith."[3] Beza pronounces them to be "the seed of the pure Christian Church, - being those who have been appointed by the wontlerful providence of God, whom none of the storms by which the world has been shaken, nor persecution, have been able to prevail on to yield a voluntary submission to Roman tyranny and idolatry." An English historian observes, "With the dawn of history we discover some simple Christians in the valleys of the Alps, where they still exist under the ancient name of the Vaudois, who by the light of the New Testament saw the extraordinary contrast between the purity of primitive times and the vices of the gorgeous hierarchy which surrounded them."[4] The late Rev. Dr. Gilly, than whom no one could have a better right to speak on the subject, in his Preface to the former Edition of the present work, observes: "Whether the Protestant inhabitants of the valleys on each side of the Alps, between the great mountain ranges of Mount Cenis and Mount Viso, can be proved by documentary evidence to derive their Christianity from primitive times or not, this is certain, that from very remote periods there has been a Christianity in this region, different from that of Rome, in the dark, mediæval, and modern ages; and this has been handed down to the present era by a succession of martyrs and confessors, and of other faithful men. The faith and discipline of these Alpine Christians may, at times, have been more or less true to the gospel rule; but their creed and church government have always contained articles

[28]

opposed to the pretensions and errors of Rome, as far as we can judge from documents that can be traced up to the fourth century at least. If, therefore, we find truth and evangelical holiness among the Waldenses of Piedmont, when other professors of the gospel in different ages and places went wrong, in the fourth century for example, and again in the ninth and eleventh, in the twelfth and thirteenth, and in the sixteenth century - if we can take epochs at random, and still find vestiges of the pure gospel at the foot of the Cottian Alps, long before the Reformation - we may conclude that the gospel was transmitted, and preserved among them, from primitive times. It is surely more probable that the "men of the valleys," shepherds and husbandmen, should retain the truth, as it was first delivered to them, than that they should be able to discover it amidst the darkness of the twelfth century, when all Christendom was departing farther and farther from the light, under the false teaching of subtle schoolmen, and ambitious and licentious hierarchs.

"At such a remote period did our Piedmontese valleys exhibit the stamp of early evangelization."

We need not multiply authorities, or nothing would be more easy; but we cannot refrain from adding that of one who will not be accused of partiality towards any form of Christianity: "It is an extraordinary fact," observes Voltaire, after affirming the antiquity of the Vaudois Church as the remains of the first Christians of Gaul, "that these men, [size=15pt]almost unknown to the rest of the world[/size], should constantly have persevered, from time immemorial, in usages which have been changed everywhere else."[5]

[29]{speaker here was a neutral atheist, the amplified part further explains why little is said of them! }

We will now say a few words on the opinions of the other party on this contested point, who, whilst bearing an equally favourable testimony to the purity and fidelity of the Vaudois Church, assign her a more recent origin, maintaining that she received both her faith and her appellation from the merchant Reformer of Lyons, Peter Waldo, of whom we shall speak hereafter. They, too, quote from the Roman Catholic writers. Allian de l'Ile, or de Lille, who lived at the end of the twelfth century, speaks of the Vaudois as "wolves in sheep's clothing, called Valdenses, from the name of their leader, Valdus." Pierre de Vaus-Cernay, an author known at the beginning of the thirteenth century, styles them, "the heretics called Valdenses, after the name of one Valdus of Lyons." And a few of the more modern historians take the same side, considering it a sufficient honour for the Vaudois Church "to be descended from a simple layman of Lyons, whose piety, moderation, and courage may serve us for a perpetual example, and to have brought out the truths of the Gospel three ages before the Reformation, as well as to have preserved it since that time amid sufferings and privation."[6] And high praise it un doubtedly is; but we must not therefore omit to state the objections raised against this view of the subject, even by those who equally esteem the intrepid Reformer of Lyons. Again we refer to our opponents - for instance, to the bull of Pope Urban II., which sets forth that the Vaudois had been "infected with heresy from the year 1096," long before the birth of Peter Waldo. We may also again quote the assertion of Pierre de Vaus-Cernay, who in his laudatory history of Simon de Montfort, observes, that "this great Defender of the Faith especially signalized himself in his extermination

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Waldensian_Church_in_the_valleys_of_Piedmont/Chapter_I

Now note that the reference to 12th century and is where Peter Waldo of Lyons come up.

PastorAIO:



This is a common thing. Too common in fact that it is to be expected. Of course they never have documentation to prove their claims to antiquity.

Other groups that make fantastic claims to antiquity include:

Freemasonry


http://www.gospeltruth.net/1869Freemasonry/freem_chap13.htm

The Alchemists, They claimed that their art goes all the way back to Adam

The Gnostics, They made claims to have the true knowledge of Jesus' teachings going all the way back to Jesus himself.

Not all claims are false. The Gnostics' error and contaminatory activities informed the Epistle to the Colossians and John alluded to them in 1 John 4. The cult had been active around that time. Point? Not all claims to antiquity is false! If others were biased at least I wont expect Voltaire and the unwilling catholic sources to be! (in the wikisource quote)

And of course The Catholic church itself
which also claims the apostolic tradition. A Claim that you would be ever ready to deny them while you support another claim which has less evidence.

That of the catholic church, as regards pope starting from Peter, has feet of clay which even the epistles refute! This will do for another thread.

Igbo people, today in nigeria there are many Igbo people who claim to be descended from Lost Jews.

And there is a scholarly piece in high international demand that affirms this claim as true. (i will give you a reference when I settle)
point? Not all claims to antiquity are false!

Claims of antiquity lend authority to movements especially new movements.

Wikipedia references Samuel Moreland book written in the 17th century based on hearsay and also J. Wiley's History of the Waldenses written in the 19th century.

What these books fail to address is why there is no record of the Catholic church oppressing these Waldensian guy prior to the 12th century.

Did you read that google books link?

It is only in the 12th century the persecutions began. However we know that the catholic church was very vigilant in seeking out heresies and oppressing them. They attacked the Gnostics and the oppression is well documented. They oppressed the Arians too. Church history talks about their attacking one heresy after another. But nothing about attacking Waldensians. not until 12th century. Why?

Did you notice that amplified portion that confirms that they were extant but little known at those times?

What do modern historians have to say about Waldensians and about their histories written by people like Moreland and Wylie?


Light in the Dark Ages, Edman


The problem with their claims is that dates have been altered and lies inserted here and there.

it is up to them or you to prove this too!











[/quote]

PastorAIO:


This man, you don't know that I've been trained in the sniffing out of wuruwuru with none less than Olaadegbu himself. Do you think you can twist more than him.? Okay let's go…

Nice to know that you have your conclusions before the discourse could properly commence; tells me you will fight even clear indications that appeal to reason! No problem.

I said I found wikipedia TRUSTWORTHY precisely because it will alert you when it is not on solid authoritative ground.
That doesn't mean that I take wikipedia to be an authority. Transparency does not equal authoritative. I'm sure you're not actually that stupid. You're just trying to twist. Try harder.

Interesting claims those! Now, referring to wikipedia, who said this?

you will show me where I quoted wikipedia where wikipedia didn't make reference to an authoritative source.
I asked you if the part of the wiki page I quoted was wrong, and if so what is your proof of that. I'll repeat my request. Here is the quote:

you said authoritative but you quickly want to change it to trustworthy! Not very honest!

If you have any proof that this is inaccurate, please supply it like a true Scholar not a nut-job.

Once again I'll say that Wikipedia's transparency makes it more trustworthy than your references thus far. That does not make wikipedia an authority.

There we go!

What is your basis for saying this? Again, do you have historical proof or documentation? What is the difference between Waldo and Vaudois? Do they not all mean 'from the valley'? There are certain words that you'll find throughout europe due to their origin in Latin. These include Valley, Vaudois, Valdo, Waldo, Valdez Vaux. Peter Waldo simply means Peter from the valley. Vaudois means People from the valley. So you'll have a hard time to try to cook up a difference between them in the hope of fooling me.

So Peter was born in Lyons, France and had no business initially with Piedmont in Italy where the People of the valley/Vaudois were based! How then is he Peter from the valley? Besides, valley in french does not start with W so Waldo which produced waldenses who merged with the vaudois may not necessarily mean 'of the valley'.

Moreover, the french vaudois simply confirms that the People of the valley based in italy were not very popular since the description by which they are popular-Vaudois is french not latin! This is so because history correctly shows that Waldo brought them to limelight (merging with his own Waldenses) hence being a frenchman, he would have so described them in his mother tongue!

Hahahahah! How silly!! So the only source you could find for your rubbish was wikipedia.

Amazing! You speak from both sides of the mouth!

Okay, two things. First I want to explain why I'm extra cautious with everything you say and then I want to explain wikipedia to you a little bit.

1) I asked you for evidence for what you were saying a while back and this was your response:



YOU ARE STILL SEARCHING KE!!! You are still searching. followed but an excuse to say providing evidence is not possible or 'impracticable' to use your term.

Thankfully early historians agree that of this group not much was known. Besides, that they have a Bible not based on the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Jerome's vulgate translated in the early centuries show their claims to antiquity as true!

[b]So obviously you arrived a
. Or maybe you've quit searching now and just opted to use wikipedia. (only because you know I respect their records abi )
[/quoted]
Treated,

[quote]
2)Okay, wikipedia now. It seems you do not understand how wikipedia works. Any nut-job can write anything on wikipedia, but other interested parties will flag a claim that has no evidence or is just plain nutty. Also wikipages need to be well written. That is where the 'prefatory plead' comes in. I asked a simple question which you failed to answer. What is factually inaccurate about the part of the wikipage that I quoted?

Explained above. Common sense reveals that Waldo could not have found the movement when they already had their latin Bible distinct from Jerome's vulgate meaning they indeed had another source the one translated to latin 157 AD!
Besides, Waldo was a frenchman, not Latin! What then?
If they had depended on Jerome's vulgate and used only french then indeed the matter is settled!

Let's look at the 'prefatory plead'.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (February 2016)
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (February 2016)

If a section needs to be rewritten that doesn't mean it is factually inaccurate. It could just be badly written. Wiki explain what it is they want from their lead sections very clearly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

Having said that that doesn't mean that the only problems that the page will face are problems of style and organisation. Like I said before it is a constant battle to keep nutjobs from contributing to a page. Check this out from the Discussion page of the article:

Didnt you know these before you made your initial claim to authoritativeness?

I'm sure you can immediately recognise this kind of nut job first by the refusal to be bothered to post a source, and secondly by the Catholic baiting that they all seem to have in common.
As the Editor points out these people are relentless and they have to be constantly vigilant.

I'll address the rest of what you said in a subsequent post.

Alright

Scholar8200:
Not all claims are false. The Gnostics' error and contaminatory activities informed the Epistle to the Colossians and John alluded to them in 1 John 4. The cult had been active around that time. Point? Not all claims to antiquity is false! If others were biased at least I wont expect Voltaire and the unwilling catholic sources to be! (in the wikisource quote)

So you believe that they are recipients of secret teaching from Jesus. That's good to know.

That of the catholic church, as regards pope starting from Peter, has feet of clay which even the epistles refute! This will do for another thread.

wow, so you will just dismiss that one without backing up with evidence. Yet Waldensians came directly from the apostles and were limited to one location in europe. and nothing was heard of them till the 12th century.

And there is a scholarly piece in high international demand that affirms this claim as true. (i will give you a reference when I settle)
point? Not all claims to antiquity are false!

I want to see this scholarly piece o! Until you can demonstrate it let's leave things unconcluded.

Not all claims to antiquity are false, but it is a common thing to try to associate with an authority from antiquity in order to get validity. It is safer to be cautious, dubious even, until solid evidence is provided.

Did you read that google books link?

Nope! You'll have to quote out the relevant part from me. Nairaland is a peripheral thing for me in my life, I don't have time to be reading a whole book just to participate in a thread.

Did you notice that amplified portion that confirms that they were extant but little known at those times?

Proof! That's all we ask for. We know for a fact that Catholic Church did not leave a stone unturned when it came to sniffing out what they considered to be heresies. Look at the Cathars. How could they have escaped notice? Surely the Church would have noticed that there was a corner of Europe that seemed to not be sending money etc.

it is up to them or you to prove this too!

You're asking to prove a negative. The question is how come there is no mention of them and you want us to prove that there is no mention of them.

What about Christ's great commission? Did these christians not preach? We know that the Cathars preached and history is full of the details of their beliefs and things they preached. Why not the Waldensians? but after the 12th century they started preaching.

Scholar8200:
Nice to know that you have your conclusions before the discourse could properly commence; tells me you will fight even clear indications that appeal to reason! No problem.

I was well on my way to my conclusion when you said you had to go and search for the evidence to back what you already made a certain claim of.


My conclusions are becoming more entrenched as I see you trying to twist my words.

Interesting claims those! Now, referring to wikipedia, who said this?

I hope you know the difference between being an Authority and making Reference to an Authoritative Source.

I said Wikipedia makes references to Authoritative sources. Can you show me, with evidence, where I quoted Wikipedia and what I quoted was false?
This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I'm asking you this.

you said authoritative but you quickly want to change it to trustworthy! Not very honest!

I haven't changed anything. You're the one resorting to dishonesty. i knew you soon start to dance the twist.

Wikipedia has the transparency to notify you when it's facts are disputed. That adds to it's trustworthiness.

This is what I said.

Amazing! You speak from both sides of the mouth!

You are speaking of yourself here. After you searched high and low for evidence to back up your prejudices, you didn't find any so you came back to Wikipedia which you had dismissed earlier, but being twisted man, you tried to put it on me that you were quoting wikipedia because I like wikipedia.

I can't not even follow your reasoning in the rest of your response. You're twisting so much that you're no longer even coherent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im9XuJJXylw

PastorAIO:


So you believe that they are recipients of secret teaching from Jesus. That's good to know.

Talk of twisting!!! show me where I said that! When I said their error was what Paul/John sought to alert the believers of in the mentioned epistles. Anyway quote where I said that!

wow, so you will just dismiss that one without backing up with evidence. Yet Waldensians came directly from the apostles and were limited to one location in europe. and nothing was heard of them till the 12th century.

The Bible is enough evidence Who the Rock was and is and will ever be!

I want to see this scholarly piece o! Until you can demonstrate it let's leave things unconcluded.

Search for, "The Black African Jews" by Dr Fatai Olasupo (featured in The Guardian of Monday February 29).

Not all claims to antiquity are false, but it is a common thing to try to associate with an authority from antiquity in order to get validity. It is safer to be cautious, dubious even, until solid evidence is provided.

Depending on the date in question! If Waldo started the people of the valley movement then common sense is that they should be known for a French and not Latin Bible!

Nope! You'll have to quote out the relevant part from me. Nairaland is a peripheral thing for me in my life, I don't have time to be reading a whole book just to participate in a thread.

That link takes you not to NL but to a page from a book which I dont think can be copied and pasted! So you spew out criticism without reading responses!!!

Proof! That's all we ask for. We know for a fact that Catholic Church did not leave a stone unturned when it came to sniffing out what they considered to be heresies. Look at the Cathars. How could they have escaped notice? Surely the Church would have noticed that there was a corner of Europe that seemed to not be sending money etc.

You say this but ignore links posted!!! How am I sure you read that piece from Wikisource?

You're asking to prove a negative. The question is how come there is no mention of them and you want us to prove that there is no mention of them.

What about Christ's great commission? Did these christians not preach? We know that the Cathars preached and history is full of the details of their beliefs and things they preached. Why not the Waldensians? but after the 12th century they started preaching.

I see, RCC was omniscient! Consider this again:

On this side we have the opinion of many eminent writers on prophecy, who point out the Vaudois church as the Western Witness; and also the unwilling testimony of several Roman Catholic authors, who record the tradition that the "heresy," as they term it, "existed in these valleys from all antiquity."[1] The Vaudois themselves maintained, in all their appeals made at various times to their sovereigns, that the religion they followed had been preserved from father to son, and from generation to generation, "from all time, and from time immemorial."[2] Most of their historians support the same opinion. "The Vaudois of the Alps," writes one of the latest, "are, according to our belief, the primitive Christians,
Wikisource

PastorAIO:


I was well on my way to my conclusion when you said you had to go and search for the evidence to back what you already made a certain claim of.

At whose request?Meaning you had already made your conclusion!!! Learn to tell the truth!

My conclusions are becoming more entrenched as I see you trying to twist my words.


I hope you know the difference between being an Authority and making Reference to an Authoritative Source.

I said Wikipedia makes references to Authoritative sources. Can you show me, with evidence, where I quoted Wikipedia and what I quoted was false?
This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I'm asking you this.

Indicate the authoritative source referenced by Wiki!

I haven't changed anything. You're the one resorting to dishonesty. i knew you soon start to dance the twist.

This is what I said.

You are speaking of yourself here. After you searched high and low for evidence to back up your prejudices, you didn't find any so you came back to Wikipedia which you had dismissed earlier, but being twisted man, you tried to put it on me that you were quoting wikipedia because I like wikipedia.

This is what happens when you dont painstakingly read through responses and secondary sources and links attached!

I can't not even follow your reasoning in the rest of your response. You're twisting so much that you're no longer even coherent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im9XuJJXylw

Too bad!

Annunaki:

Even we the annunaki know and believe in the lordship of Jesus.

Lol

PastorAIO:


I was well on my way to my conclusion when you said you had to go and search for the evidence to back what you already made a certain claim of.


My conclusions are becoming more entrenched as I see you trying to twist my words.


I hope you know the difference between being an Authority and making Reference to an Authoritative Source.

I said Wikipedia makes references to Authoritative sources. Can you show me, with evidence, where I quoted Wikipedia and what I quoted was false?
This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I'm asking you this.


I haven't changed anything. You're the one resorting to dishonesty. i knew you soon start to dance the twist.

This is what I said.

You are speaking of yourself here. After you searched high and low for evidence to back up your prejudices, you didn't find any so you came back to Wikipedia which you had dismissed earlier, but being twisted man, you tried to put it on me that you were quoting wikipedia because I like wikipedia.

I can't not even follow your reasoning in the rest of your response. You're twisting so much that you're no longer even coherent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im9XuJJXylw

Regarding your accusation of me twisting your words, kindly do a call and response quote of what you said and how I twisted it.

Scholar8200:
Not all claims are false. The Gnostics' error and contaminatory activities informed the Epistle to the Colossians and John alluded to them in 1 John 4. The cult had been active around that time. Point? Not all claims to antiquity is false! If others were biased at least I wont expect Voltaire and the unwilling catholic sources to be! (in the wikisource quote)




That of the catholic church, as regards pope starting from Peter, has feet of clay which even the epistles refute! This will do for another thread.

And there is a scholarly piece in high international demand that affirms this claim as true. (i will give you a reference when I settle)
point? Not all claims to antiquity are false!

Not all claims to antiquity are False! Nobody is arguing with you there. However that has no bearing on my point that it is a common thing to make a claim to antiquity in order to lend yourself legitimacy. Just because 0.001% of such claims may be true does not mean that we have to swallow every such claim hook line and sinker. We have to investigate and seek firm proofs. Do we have any firm evidence in any of the claims you've made? The answer is a resounding NO!

The Gnostics claim that their teachings hark back to Christ. The fact that 1John or Colossians alludes to them (according to you) does not support or discredit that claim. Letters of John and Colossians were written long after Jesus was gone. (I don't know what you mean by Voltaire and unwilling Catholics sources. what did these people say that resounded with such honesty and incontrovertible authority.)

I see you want to run away from disputing the Catholic claim to antiquity. Make whatever unjustified remark you want to about them but just be prepared to have the same rigorous analysis of their claim applied to your claims too. Now you've dismissed them without even an argument, but you want others to bring proofs and arguments before they dismiss yours.

I didn't know that 'high international demand' was what gave a 'scholarly article' credence. In that case Crack Cocaine too must be a good thing because it is highly demanded. Anyway sha…. bring the article and we'll compare it's claims vis a vis that of the Catholic church and that of the Waldensians and see which can best withstand rigorous analysis.

Did you read that google books link?

Nope

Did you notice that amplified portion that confirms that they were extant but little known at those times?

You will have to quote the relevant part of the book that applies to our discuss and I'll read that but there is no way that I'm going to go and read a whole book just for the purpose of this discussion.
I am curious as to how their existence was confirmed in this book though. I'd love to see the proof.

it is up to them or you to prove this too

Actually the burden of proof is on the person making the claims.

Scholar8200:
Talk of twisting!!! show me where I said that! When I said their error was what Paul/John sought to alert the believers of in the mentioned epistles. Anyway quote where I said that!

It was a rhetorical statement. We were discussing their claims to go back to Jesus and instead of refuting that you instead tell me that Paul and John make reference to them. Since you avoided tackling the claim head on I suggested that you must believe it.

The Bible is enough evidence Who the Rock was and is and will ever be!

Your claims for what bible is referring to is so obviously your own subjective interpretation. So because Christ is called the Rock of Ages any mention of any other rock anywhere else in the bible must be a reference to Christ? And as the holy spirit descended like a dove, any dove we see now must be the holy spirit, abi?

Search for, "The Black African Jews" by Dr Fatai Olasupo (featured in The Guardian of Monday February 29).

I've already told you I don't have time. Distill the most pertinent points from his argument and post them here for me to read.

Depending on the date in question! If Waldo started the people of the valley movement then common sense is that they should be known for a French and not Latin Bible!

Mister, There were many versions of a latin bible that translated from the greek and hebrew long before Jerome translated the Vulgate. The Catholic church used and mentioned many of these. There are even some parts of the Catholic liturgy that still use passages from old latin translations. eg. 'Gloria in Excelsis', you won't find this phrase in the Vulgate but you will find it in the older latin translations. Unless you can prove that Waldensians existed and they are the creators of at least one of this old latin versions of the bible then there is no reason to not believe that these were all written by catholics.

Waldo later translated a latin bible into his regional dialect. Now talking of regional dialects, South of France is just across the border from North of Italy. These alpine peoples have their own dialects and they are closer to each other than they are to their respective countries. So your trying to make it seem that because waldo is french he will have nothing to do with the Northern Italians will not work on me.

That link takes you not to NL but to a page from a book which I dont think can be copied and pasted! So you spew out criticism without reading responses!!!

But you can read! And you can type! It is not too hard to type out a relevant paragraph. I didn't 'spew' out any criticism of the book. I would have to read the book before i can 'spew' any criticism of it. However i have criticised your pseudo-scholarship because it is laid bare of us to see here.

You say this but ignore links posted!!! How am I sure you read that piece from Wikisource?

Again, I cannot go and read a whole book because you want to dribble me. type out the relevant passage that you want to use to buttress your point.

I see, RCC was omniscient! Consider this again:

On this side we have the opinion of many eminent writers on prophecy, who point out the Vaudois church as the Western Witness; and also the unwilling testimony of several Roman Catholic authors, who record the tradition that the "heresy," as they term it, "existed in these valleys from all antiquity."[1] The Vaudois themselves maintained, in all their appeals made at various times to their sovereigns, that the religion they followed had been preserved from father to son, and from generation to generation, "from all time, and from time immemorial."[2] Most of their historians support the same opinion. "The Vaudois of the Alps," writes one of the latest, "are, according to our belief, the primitive Christians,
Wikisource

Who are these Catholic authors and what is their source of information? You can yourself a scholar nah! and you even started off belittling wikipedia. But you're doing the very thing that you were belittling before. You're quoting wikipedia hook line and sinker without investigating it's statements. This is part of what we call the twisting. Now you'll notice little numbers have certain statements in wikipedia. This is where they reference their sources. Were this Catholic authors quoting from later waldensians or are they referring to references of Waldensians made at the times of antiquity?

orisa37:


Christianity is a "Mocking" word coined in Antioch for the followers of the man who died on the Cross. There were 12 followers which included Simon Peter, James and John etc. The Bible tells that Christ covenanted to build His Church on "Petros" being Peter in Rome. That Church established by Covenant of Christ was a Universal meaning Catholic Church. After the Spanish Armada, Anglo Saxson opted out of what used to be general catholic church and formed The Anglican Communion. Thus leaving the Balance in Rome as The Roman Catholic Church. In other words, The Roman Catholic, The Anglican, The American Church based on the Pilgrim Progress, The Penticostal Churches etc are all established from Rome and they all use The Septuagint,The Vulgate and The KJV Bible to relate to Christ. IJN AMEN!!!!

Are you a Christian? Do you stand on Christ the solid Rock or on Peter?

O.Yes. I'm Born Again. Christ prayed for the 12 Disciples and for people Born Again like I'm in St. John 17. I'm an Aapostle of Jesus Christ.

Scholar8200:
At whose request?Meaning you had already made your conclusion!!! Learn to tell the truth!

I'll repeat. You made a claim will all certainty. I asked you to back it up with sources. You then told me that you had to go and search for your sources to back up what you had already stated with absolute certainty. That was when I suspected that you were a jiving kinda guy. To date you still haven't produced any evidence to back up your certain claims.

Indicate the authoritative source referenced by Wiki!

Are you joking!!? Oh, maybe this is just another attempt to twist from you. I asked you, "Can you show me, with evidence, where I quoted Wikipedia and what I quoted was false? " and instead of a straight answer you twist past the question and demand that I show you the authoritative source that was referenced in Wiki. Quite pathetic but I'll indulge you none the less.

That was the opening lead of the wiki page, which is a summary of all that came after. This is the passage I quoted:

The Waldensians (also known variously as Waldenses (/wɔːlˈdɛnsiːz, wɒl-/), Vallenses, Valdesi or Vaudois) are a Christian movement and religious cultural group which appeared first in Lyon and spread to the Cottian Alps in the late 1170s. Today, the Waldensian movement is centered on Piedmont in northern Italy, while small communities are also found in southern Italy, Argentina, Germany, the United States, and Uruguay.

These are the points it raised:

1)Waldensians are a religious and cultural group. Do you really need a reference for this before you believe? I hope not.

2) They appeared first in Lyon in 1170s. So it is mentioned in the summary. Now when you read further you will see in the main body of the page where it is discussed in more detail and there the sources are given. The Main source is the Chronicles of Laon, which is a medieval book on heresies. ref [6].

http://uo-medievalchristianity.weebly.com/blog/chronicle-of-laon-and-chronicle-of-trier

This link gives a summary of it.

Heresy became a major issue during the 12th and 13th century due to the rise of many new forms of Christianity. One such heresy comes from Peter Waldo, told in Chronicle of Laon, who first began his Christian life after hearing a story about St. Alexis from an entertainer and from this story came his desire to seek out the knowledge of Christianity from schools. This new profound faith drove Peter to give all his property to his wife and start allocating money to the poor, his daughters, and returned money to the people he wronged. Peter then started to preach living a poorer life style to his followers, but in 1178 Pope Alexander III held a council that condemned the actions of Peter in the matters of preaching and forbade Peter to preach unless he had permission from bishops.

This is what happens when you dont painstakingly read through responses and secondary sources and links attached!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Too bad!

Yeah too bad.

Scholar8200:
Regarding your accusation of me twisting your words, kindly do a call and response quote of what you said and how I twisted it.

You're giving me work. No wahala. Here you go.

I said:

I said I found wikipedia TRUSTWORTHY precisely because it will alert you when it is not on solid authoritative ground.
That doesn't mean that I take wikipedia to be an authority. Transparency does not equal authoritative. I'm sure you're not actually that silly. You're just trying to twist. Try harder.

And

you will show me where I quoted wikipedia where wikipedia didn't make reference to an authoritative source.
I asked you if the part of the wiki page I quoted was wrong, and if so what is your proof of that. I'll repeat my request. Here is the quote:

And you said this:

you said authoritative but you quickly want to change it to trustworthy! Not very honest!

This is only one, and a very glaring one at that, so it will do. I never said wiki was authoritative but it made reference to authoritative sources and I found it trustworthy cos where it had no authoritative back up it openly admits it (unlike some people I know). You then want to call me dishonest when you are the one motivated by dishonesty from the very start.

You denigrated Wikipedia then you ended up trying to rely on wikipedia to make your point because you felt you could twist it to your own ends. Alas, you won't get away with that, not with me.

OLAADEGBU:


So, someone who is a true Christian will believe these things and not violate them. Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints) to the level of God-like capabilities, they break the commandment to have no other gods before the true and living God. In Roman Catholicism, they say that Mary is the mediatrix (Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 969), Mary made atonement for the sins of man (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 213), and Mary is the subject of preaching and worship (Vatican Council II, p. 420), etc.

Also, Catholicism violates the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone. Paul the apostle, for example, tells us in Romans 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." But Roman Catholicism denies that and says, " . . . so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments," (CCC, par 2068). Also, consider this:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema," (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).

So, even though Roman Catholicism claims to be Christian and that it is the one true church, it violates the essentials of the Christian faith. It goes beyond what is written in God's Word (1 Cor. 4:6). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church.

The conclusion.

OLAADEGBU

Catholicism far from violating those Biblical doctrines, as you and your evangelical protestant friends would want us to believe, has rather upheld and preserved their sanctity for the past 2000 years in that wonderful unbroken succession of Popes and Bishops who have been the faithful guardians of the full deposit of faith that Our Lord Jesus Christ intended to be taught till the end of the world.

I have never ceased to be bewildered by anti-Catholics like you, who with their know-all attitude will go all lengths to vilify and demonize Christ's true Church by their indiscriminate and reckless plethora of Biblical quotations. More often than not, such quotations have no any relevance or legitimate connection to the Catholic belief they may be challenging. Eventually they will come up with their own interpretations attempting to water down Catholic truths that are just TOO OBVIOUS in the Bible. Such personal interpretations usually end up in futility as they don't hold up in making any theological, intellectual or factual sense.

I have pondered over many contentious issues like Sola Scriptura, Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence, Justification, etc and in none of these do the Protestant objections or line of argument really make ANY SENSE.

I dare say that it is only from the perspective of Catholicism that one derives a well-harmonized and meaningful interpretation of the numerous Biblical verses touching on a particular subject or topic, for eg. the Papacy.
Only in Catholicism will one arrive at a LOGICAL COHERENCE of scriptural verses and passages in pointing to a doctrine whereas all what Protestantism does is just to pick and choose verses out of context and make out of them interpretations which negate other similar Biblical verses, ending nowhere but in mass of contradictions and errors .

So OLAADEGBU, go out all you can with your venomous, vicious attacks on Christ's Holy Church. Only be reminded that the "gates of Hell will never never prevail over the Catholic Church" as the Lord Himself promised, however much you persistently vilify her with all your objections and arguments.
Thankfully many a Catholic are well-grounded and too matured in their faith to be swayed over by your baseless and pointless accusations.

My only prayer is that Our Lord Jesus through the intercession of his holy Mother Mary will enlighten you and all other like-minded people from such darkness of deceit into which you are plunging so many souls by demonizing His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.