From the Apostle's Gospel, to the church's witch hunts?

[GoldenKingGaze]

Good day, how did we go from the righteousness and grace and truth of the apostle's Gospel to the latter church's witch hunts and the claims of it's right and benefits?
I am looking for what broke the succession of truth and grace.
Does anyone think the right of the witch hunts was or is valid?

I see our systems of justice as based on the wrong kind of righteousness and judgement. Mine is the Westminster system.

We prosecute murder, but our missionaries go say from New Jersey to the Amazon, to pick up on where a murdered missionary left off. I see a contradiction here.

I recall the issue of Ergot nerve toxin poisoning and the pursuit not of deliverance or evangelism, but a witch hunt, I recall in New England. Perhaps Schizophrenic people were thought to be witches by people who didn't like the homeless and dirty ones, muttering to themselves... The trials were the essential trial and error basis for modern courts and rights. But still, it is in correction of a fundamentally erring system.

Native people under this system were not evangelized and were considered to be witches and immoral. With ancestor worship, multiple wives and in Australia, initiation of boys at 13 to manhood with buggery. Lithuanians were pagans right up until first contact in the new world.

What do others think?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It all boils down to the old testament injunction not to suffer a witch to live.

There is a well known phenomenon in Anthropologic circles of the witch, the other, being blamed for misfortune and by being thus sent away or killed, to expiate this misfortune from the populace. You find such rituals amongst primitive peoples the world over, it was mentioned by the ancient Greeks in the form of the Pharmakos, and even Jordanes mentions it amongst the Huns and Goths and the greatest incidence of it is of course the Holocaust. Witch hunts are merely another example of this tendency in humanity to blame our ills on someone else instead of ourselves or to accept that there had been no one to blame.

The church initially was very sceptical of claims of witchcraft:
The Canon Episcopi of 314 AD taught that witchcraft in fact did not exist.
The councils of Elvira, Ancyra and Trullo in the fourth century all had mild penances for consorting with the devil, but doubted any witch powers would be gained from it.
The Council of Paderborn in 785 explicitly said that it was outlawed to condemn anyone as a witch.
The Decretum of Bishop Burchard of Worms in 1020 said witches do not exist.
Pope Gregory VII forbade the putting to death of anyone as a witch in 1080.
Pope Alexander IV in 1258 forbade the investigation of claims of witchcraft as there was no basis to it.
I could go on, but I believe I made my point.

Following the late mediaeval works of Thomas Aquinas and the late Scholastics and their beliefs of demonic influence in the world, a new belief in Maleficarium (the old testament Witch) arose in western Christianity along with complex demonology, princes of hell and a rise of occult investigation amongst educated classes. The old testament reference came to be equated both with heresy and to the common man's age old belief in sorcery. This created a poisonous cauldron of beliefs that had never existed as these had not been so closely connected before.
From the early fifteenth century we see educated tracts against witches to be published and the first trials conducted by ecclesiastical courts. This culminated in 1484 when Pope Innocent VIII authorised the hunting down and killing of witches.
The witch trial fever in Europe came in waves, usually during times of strife or misfortune, betraying its age old expiatory origin (It is similar to the pogroms of eastern Europe in that sense at a later stage). This is why we see Matthew Hopkins active in the English Civil War for instance or large scale witch trials during the turbulent times of the reformation. The same with the Famous Salem trials as they followed the turbulence of the Glorious revolution.

It was the large scale abandonment of the beliefs of active demonic involvement in our affairs by our ancestors following the counter-reformation, the Enlightenment and the development of modern nation states which largely ended witch trials. They continued to occur sporadically, but were largely a thing of the past. It is estimated about 40000 to 70000 witches were put to death in the 300 or so years they were popularly thought to exist.

Witchcraft trials and killings continue today in much of the third world, basically wherever magic is considered to be a strong potent force. Innocents are regularly still put to death.

Whenever misfortune fell, it was easy to find someone to blame amongst the vulnerable populations to be a scapegoat for our collective misfortune. Humans are really pathetic creatures, which is why we need grace all the more.

Regarding the way the trials were conducted, they were done on the accepted legal principles of the time and surprisingly most witches on record were acquitted. Usually they were let go as the court realised they were mentally ill or that the accusers had an axe to grind. A large percentage were still killed, but it is better than the popular view has it, where you are condemned regardless (the old swim and she's a witch or drown and she's innocent myth). It is difficult to have a fair trial at any time, but that is another matter entirely.

Lastly, some notes on other things you said:
Yes the Lithuanians were the last pagan peoples of Europe, but this has nothing to do with witchcraft and they converted willingly when their Duke became King of Poland.
I have never heard of native people not being evangelised because they were considered witches. The pagans of Europe, North America and Africa were evangelised from first contact with Christian Europe. There was some reluctance occasionally as they had to be treated differently if they converted (for instance not to be enslaved or would fall under different law codes), but evangelisation always occurred. I had thought it the same for Australia as well, but I do not know enough regarding Australian colonisation to comment on this.
Initiation by buggery is atrocious and by all means had to be supressed. Don't understand its relevance to witchcraft though.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Thanks. I mention paganism and witch hunts and evangelism together because it seems that pagans come across by Christians and from Europe where people were pagan right up until first contact with native Americans, were not evangelized but judged. Sure there was some conversion happening in India, and some among native Americans and some in Australia, but there is a difference between the methods coming from the apostle's way and the sense in the medieval's way.

The converts in Europe were not like the first converts in Greece and Rome.

There are no many native people left, and India's break to independence was a milestone of history.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To be fair, the Apostles were evangelising within a culture they were familiar with, the general Greco-Roman world. Also they had no long term history or central authority supporting them at that stage.
The later Europeans attempted to convert alien peoples, in most cases not even speaking languages in any way related to theirs and having very little if any cultural concepts in common. There was also imperialism and commercial interests at stake that favoured some more assimilation than the apostles would have done. But all in all those that actually tried to convert the natives did as good a job as one would expect in those difficult circumstances. The apostles did not convert the Roman Empire, it took more than 300 years, likewise the evangelisation of most of the world is still on going.

The converts in Europe were not like the first converts in Greece and Rome.

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean. In what way? What do you mean with Europe? Eastern and Northern Europe?

There are no many native people left, and India's break to independence was a milestone of history.

Again I do not understand. How is India's independence relevant to this discussion?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

To be fair, the Apostles were evangelising within a culture they were familiar with, the general Greco-Roman world. Also they had no long term history or central authority supporting them at that stage.
The later Europeans attempted to convert alien peoples, in most cases not even speaking languages in any way related to theirs and having very little if any cultural concepts in common. There was also imperialism and commercial interests at stake that favoured some more assimilation than the apostles would have done. But all in all those that actually tried to convert the natives did as good a job as one would expect in those difficult circumstances. The apostles did not convert the Roman Empire, it took more than 300 years, likewise the evangelisation of most of the world is still on going.



I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean. In what way? What do you mean with Europe? Eastern and Northern Europe?



Again I do not understand. How is India's independence relevant to this discussion?

Europe meaning the countries with powerful navies. Spain, Portugal, England, France, Holland and Germany. It looked like commerce, with slavery and clearing land of people was part of their workings, and European settlers, if they felt insecure would call for the cavalry which would kill all men women and children. From six or seven million native Americans there were, there are now three hundred thousand, or two hundred and fifty thousand remaining, and there are all up, three hundred and twenty million US citizens.

India is different, their population is great, but was once held in some difficulty by GB, unfair trade. Gandhi worked for liberation, independence. Hindus, native Americans and Aboriginals religions were generally by interpretation of St Paul, mentioning that where ever an idol is set up and worshiped, there is a demon, were then considered to be like witchcraft. Then so soon after converting from paganism, they did not convert but judged other pagans.

It is known that some native Americans worshiped the great Spirit in the sky, thought to be, the same as the Holy Ghost.

St Patrick went to great lengths to convert Ireland, brutal people when pagan, but Christians colonizing America were generally insecure, pioneers for their patrimony spreading over the land and building up civilization, progressing, and now we have the greatest civilization ever. It was done so fast, that few missionaries went to the natives, and they were left behind. Either Christian faith or being taught civil ways would have saved more of them.

The Dutch, evangelical mayor of NY, when dealing with the friendly and interested native people of Manhattan Island, found they didn't pay tax, had them all put to death. Also some people did the job. I understand that if with wife and children, and in amidst native people who can kill or kidnap... that if threatened, the choice would have to go to save my family and then would come in the cavalry, later trained by the Hungarians. But this was blunt and not right by the apostles. More a medieval noble and violent knights kind of action.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Europe meaning the countries with powerful navies. Spain, Portugal, England, France, Holland and Germany. It looked like commerce, with slavery and clearing land of people was part of their workings, and European settlers, if they felt insecure would call for the cavalry which would kill all men women and children. From six or seven million native Americans there were, there are now three hundred thousand, or two hundred and fifty thousand remaining, and there are all up, three hundred and twenty million US citizens.

You are not correct and not making sense. The countries you mention were converted to Christianity in +-300;300;700;300;750 and 800s respectively. Your previous comments about people coming from Europe who were pagan right up to first contact therefore makes no sense. America was discovered in 1492 and the eastern spice routes opened in the 1480s. This is centuries after these countries were Christianised. At the same time, Paganism in Lithuania ended in 1341, more than 150 years before European contact with primitive peoples. So even if you took Europe as a whole, Paganism had been completed wiped out centuries before any contacts.
You are also generalising immensely with what you are saying. The French in Quebec did not clear land of people nor enslave the natives, likewise the Dutch in Africa and the British in India. Germany was a late comer to the Imperial race, only entering in the 1870s (Germany only came into existence in 1871).
This ridiculous story of calling in the cavalry and everyone being slaughtered is ludicrous and has no basis in history. You have been watching too many bad westerns. Most of the time that would have caused massive native uprisings. While there were frequent tensions with the natives and occasional massacres on both sides, the only event that can maybe be said to equate to what you are describing is the Herero Genocide in Namibia. Even the Americans in the wild west did not engage in indiscriminate slaughter of women and children at the drop of a hat (although there were such massacres committed).
Your numbers are also way off. It is estimated that there was probably about 7 to 12 million people to a high of 50 million in the whole of the Americas in 1492 and today there are far more people of Native American descent than that. In the USA alone there are 7 million registered Native American tribe members and probably a whole lot more than that that are descendants of them.

India is different, their population is great, but was once held in some difficulty by GB, unfair trade. Gandhi worked for liberation, independence. Hindus, native Americans and Aboriginals religions were generally by interpretation of St Paul, mentioning that where ever an idol is set up and worshiped, there is a demon, were then considered to be like witchcraft. Then so soon after converting from paganism, they did not convert but judged other pagans.

No European in India (where evangelisation only started in earnest after 1850), would have used the terminology 'witchcraft'. This was the height of interest in Sanskrit studies and Aryan speculations and the English spoke of Hinduism and 'Hindoostani beliefs' at this time. No European ever equated any of the native animist religions to European witchcraft at any time during the Eighteenth, Nineteenth or twentieth centuries; that is a complete fallacy. This was the period after the decline of the belief in demonic powers that most colonialism took place, at least by the Dutch, French, British and Germans.
The term 'witch doctor' was adopted for Oceania and Africa, but this was essentially a loose translation of those peoples' own terms and had nothing whatsoever to do with the European witch trials of late mediaeval times.
As stated above, they had not been recently converted from Paganism, but had been Christian for centuries.
Also Britain held India quite lightly using mostly local Sepoys, they only had trouble much later on and it is difficult to decide something is unfair trade if the economic picture between different areas is so vastly different.

It is known that some native Americans worshiped the great Spirit in the sky, thought to be, the same as the Holy Ghost.

This is Blasphemy. The great Spirit in the sky demanded sacrifice, such as bloodletting and the Sundance in which chunks of flesh were ripped out of dancers' chests by big iron hooks. Also it was not always beneficent, sometimes bringing hardship. It does not equate to the Christian Person of the Trinity and such syncretism is an affront to my religion and clearly shows ignorance about the Great Spirit of the plains Indians of the USA.

St Patrick went to great lengths to convert Ireland, brutal people when pagan, but Christians colonizing America were generally insecure, pioneers for their patrimony spreading over the land and building up civilization, progressing, and now we have the greatest civilization ever. It was done so fast, that few missionaries went to the natives, and they were left behind. Either Christian faith or being taught civil ways would have saved more of them.

Yes, St. Patrick converted the native Irish, but there conversion also took blood and fighting. Also, Ireland was colonised by the English as well, Irish were forced off their land and there were also massacres. It wasn't just done to non-European native peoples.
There were also constant efforts at converting and Civilising native peoples wherever the Europeans went. In the USA you will find the noted example of the five civilized tribes that had converted to Christianity.

The Dutch, evangelical mayor of NY, when dealing with the friendly and interested native people of Manhattan Island, found they didn't pay tax, had them all put to death. Also some people did the job. I understand that if with wife and children, and in amidst native people who can kill or kidnap... that if threatened, the choice would have to go to save my family and then would come in the cavalry, later trained by the Hungarians. But this was blunt and not right by the apostles. More a medieval noble and violent knights kind of action.

This is complete nonsense. I have never heard of this and I am quite a history buff. I could not find it as well in a quick search. It also does not sound at all like the Dutch colonising style in New Amsterdam which was built on cooperation with the natives so that they would bring furs to trade. I have no idea where you got this information from, but the fact that this 'mayor' has no name is very instructive as to its reliability.

All in all, your original question seemed a legitimate one on why would Christianity start witch trials based on its doctrines, but now that I have read your responses, I see that you and I were thinking of completely different things. This has descended down to a diatribe against colonialism and European intervention in the age of Discovery on your part, based on half-truths, exaggerations, accusations and misunderstandings.
I hold that you cannot hold Christianity to blame for the abuses and crimes of Imperialism and Colonialism as these weren't in the spirit of the Religion and at all times there were clerics who vehemently opposed the actions of their governments in these matters. No Christian said to kill women and children, take land or whatever; Greed was to blame. These were mostly the crimes of the secular state and commerce, not of Christianity.

I don't think we will be arguing about the same things, nor that I would understand you correctly, so I shall not be replying to this thread again.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I see, then I will have to check my figures.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.html

Yes I was wrong, in total in the US there are 7680000 native and mixed race with native people.
Although in 1890, there were only 250,000 left in the US. Killed by disease accidentally and deliberately, and killed in wars and by starvation.
As missionaries to say China or India or Korea, if we did this, we'd owe them an apology.
Sorry that I drifted from my OP and I intend to make another thread more according to my OP here.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Hey, Brother. I could be wrong, but I personally feel that the doctrine of God being Triune developing alongside increasingly technical, specific, complicated Christologies which tended to anathema one another, brought much of the ship down.

From believing in One God and worshiping and following His Son and Messiah to complicated, bizarre arguments about hypostasis, natures, and persons. Seems like Christians began to persecute one another and then to persecute others with increasing pride and wickedness the more nuanced and specific everyone's cherished theologies became.

Not that every Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christian was involved or bought into cruelty being Christian. But many did.

Good day, how did we go from the righteousness and grace and truth of the apostle's Gospel to the latter church's witch hunts and the claims of it's right and benefits?
I am looking for what broke the succession of truth and grace.
Does anyone think the right of the witch hunts was or is valid?

I see our systems of justice as based on the wrong kind of righteousness and judgement. Mine is the Westminster system.

We prosecute murder, but our missionaries go say from New Jersey to the Amazon, to pick up on where a murdered missionary left off. I see a contradiction here.

I recall the issue of Ergot nerve toxin poisoning and the pursuit not of deliverance or evangelism, but a witch hunt, I recall in New England. Perhaps Schizophrenic people were thought to be witches by people who didn't like the homeless and dirty ones, muttering to themselves... The trials were the essential trial and error basis for modern courts and rights. But still, it is in correction of a fundamentally erring system.

Native people under this system were not evangelized and were considered to be witches and immoral. With ancestor worship, multiple wives and in Australia, initiation of boys at 13 to manhood with buggery. Lithuanians were pagans right up until first contact in the new world.

What do others think?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Well I think there is a difference between the era of the authentic Holy Ghost in the church and the true revelation, and later times. Post St Augustine.

 

[Radagast]

Good day, how did we go from the righteousness and grace and truth of the apostle's Gospel to the latter church's witch hunts and the claims of it's right and benefits?

What witch hunts? Have you some specific historical event in mind, or have you been reading myths?

 

[Radagast]

The Dutch, evangelical mayor of NY, when dealing with the friendly and interested native people of Manhattan Island, found they didn't pay tax, had them all put to death.

Oh, you have been reading myths, as someone has already pointed out.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Oh, you have been reading myths, as someone has already pointed out.

I will ask fellows who are read up on US history.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Good day, how did we go from the righteousness and grace and truth of the apostle's Gospel to the latter church's witch hunts and the claims of it's right and benefits?
I am looking for what broke the succession of truth and grace.
Does anyone think the right of the witch hunts was or is valid?

I see our systems of justice as based on the wrong kind of righteousness and judgement. Mine is the Westminster system.

We prosecute murder, but our missionaries go say from New Jersey to the Amazon, to pick up on where a murdered missionary left off. I see a contradiction here.

I recall the issue of Ergot nerve toxin poisoning and the pursuit not of deliverance or evangelism, but a witch hunt, I recall in New England. Perhaps Schizophrenic people were thought to be witches by people who didn't like the homeless and dirty ones, muttering to themselves... The trials were the essential trial and error basis for modern courts and rights. But still, it is in correction of a fundamentally erring system.

Native people under this system were not evangelized and were considered to be witches and immoral. With ancestor worship, multiple wives and in Australia, initiation of boys at 13 to manhood with buggery. Lithuanians were pagans right up until first contact in the new world.

What do others think?

Are you talking about in Europe or in America? There were witch hunts in Europe, but only about 60,000 were actually killed in 300 years. That's a big number, but not nearly as big as the myth of wild witch hunts shows. In the period from 1540-1640, the Spanish Inquisition only had 12 people executed for suspicion of witchcraft. The witchhunts in America were primarily Protestant, with few figures to show.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I am thinking of Europe and America and did not know figures but was interested in the loss of the grace and the coming of a judgementalism and superstition in place of the earlier and it's dynamics at love and conversion. St Francis in the 12th century would have addressed this.

 

[com7fy8]

I don't think Jesus Christ's obedient church was doing that witch hunt stuff and the killing and fighting between people of different theological ideas. All along, there have been evil people who would turn things the wrong way; this includes while Jesus was on this earth > there were ones who crucified Jesus, right while He was doing all the good and right things. And then, all along, there have been the wrong ones showing themselves to be God's representatives.

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

"And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?" (1 Peter 3:13)

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Well yes, Abel was attacked, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, the Christians in Rome, so there is reason to be suspicious, then after medieval times in Germany the homosexuals, Jews, gypsies... then the communists in the USA, and now others come under attack.

Terrorists attack, namers and shamers attack, the traditional marriers are under attack, Gospel readers.

 

[Albion]

I am thinking of Europe and America and did not know figures but was interested in the loss of the grace and the coming of a judgementalism and superstition in place of the earlier and it's dynamics at love and conversion. St Francis in the 12th century would have addressed this.

Are you talking about actual witch hunts or are you applying the term to just about any persecution of religious non-conformists?

If it's the former, the New England example, that was simply a late and very small example of a huge history of witch hunting leading up to the 1600s. And if it's the latter that you are speaking to, I'd say that this term ought not to be used since it only confuses the issue.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

In my OP, I am following with an interest in studying church history, the original church grace, and the witch hunters' church righteousness by comparison. Then coming to the native peoples and then just seeing the same evil of human nature becoming more refined, but still not gracious.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am thinking of Europe and America and did not know figures but was interested in the loss of the grace and the coming of a judgementalism and superstition in place of the earlier and it's dynamics at love and conversion. St Francis in the 12th century would have addressed this.

Since most of the witch hunts happened after the Protestant Reformation, and there were never witch hunts in Spain or Italy, Francis would not have addressed it.