Mythic denominational history.

[Xeno.of.athens]

One example of the Mythic history of the church Genre in literature is "The trail of blood"

The Trail of Blood is a 1931 book by American Southern Baptist minister James Milton Carroll, comprising a collection of five lectures he gave on the history of Baptist churches, which he presented as a succession from the first Christians. The work has been criticized for linking together numerous unrelated sects and historical heresies that have no relation to Baptist theology or polity.​

Others are "The Great Controversy"

The book begins with a historical overview, which begins with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, covers the Reformation and Advent movement in detail, and culminates with a lengthy description of the end times. It also outlines several key Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, including the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment and the state of the dead.​

And "Jehovah's Witnesses : proclaimers of God's kingdom"

Summary: Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom is a 749 page book that is published by Jehovah's Witnesses which gives a detailed history of the organization and organizational structure, various schools, assemblies and programs, literature, as well as a section on persecution, and problems within the organization itself.​

Each book purports to give a history of Christianity, each has sources from which very tenuous ancestry for the denomination or religion is drawn, and each book proclaims that the denomination or religion it advocates for is The church that Jesus Christ founded.

I think that all three of the ones I have mentioned are mythic rather than historic and all three are fundamentally incorrect.

 

[HTacianas]

One example of the Mythic history of the church Genre in literature is "The trail of blood"

The Trail of Blood is a 1931 book by American Southern Baptist minister James Milton Carroll, comprising a collection of five lectures he gave on the history of Baptist churches, which he presented as a succession from the first Christians. The work has been criticized for linking together numerous unrelated sects and historical heresies that have no relation to Baptist theology or polity.​

Others are "The Great Controversy"

The book begins with a historical overview, which begins with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, covers the Reformation and Advent movement in detail, and culminates with a lengthy description of the end times. It also outlines several key Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, including the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment and the state of the dead.​

And "Jehovah's Witnesses : proclaimers of God's kingdom"

Summary: Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom is a 749 page book that is published by Jehovah's Witnesses which gives a detailed history of the organization and organizational structure, various schools, assemblies and programs, literature, as well as a section on persecution, and problems within the organization itself.​

Each book purports to give a history of Christianity, each has sources from which very tenuous ancestry for the denomination or religion is drawn, and each book proclaims that the denomination or religion it advocates for is The church that Jesus Christ founded.

I think that all three of the ones I have mentioned are mythic rather than historic and all three are fundamentally incorrect.

The Trail of Blood is a hoax. The author collected up the names of most any heretical group he could find and then spun it to make it seem like each of them was a continuation of the other down through history until finally reaching his own particular group. By doing that he laid claim to being the original Church. His 'research" is riddled with easily provable falsehoods. No one takes it seriously.

The Great Controversy is another tall tale. But you'll find that The Trail of Blood and The Great Controversy (much like the Book of Mormon) have one thing in common, that being the authors' hatred of the Roman Church. Both perspectives paint an "us against them" conflict between themselves and Roman Catholicism. The gaping hole in their ideas is their lack of knowledge of the Eastern Churches. They are entirely Western-centric. That demonstrates a complete lack of universal knowledge. They are centered entirely on what little information the writers have about the Church in general and are told from that limited perspective..

The Jehovah's Witnesses really aren't worth mentioning. Some of their core beliefs are founded on a layman's understanding -and nearly a pop culturalist view- of some terms used in the new testament. And then what of the new testament disproves their beliefs they simply changed in their own translation to reflect their views.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Trail of Blood is a hoax. The author collected up the names of most any heretical group he could find and then spun it to make it seem like each of them was a continuation of the other down through history until finally reaching his own particular group. By doing that he laid claim to being the original Church. His 'research" is riddled with easily provable falsehoods. No one takes it seriously.

The Great Controversy is another tall tale. But you'll find that The Trail of Blood and The Great Controversy (much like the Book of Mormon) have one thing in common, that being the authors' hatred of the Roman Church. Both perspectives paint an "us against them" conflict between themselves and Roman Catholicism. The gaping hole in their ideas is their lack of knowledge of the Eastern Churches. They are entirely Western-centric. That demonstrates a complete lack of universal knowledge. They are centered entirely on what little information the writers have about the Church in general and are told from that limited perspective..

The Jehovah's Witnesses really aren't worth mentioning. Some of their core beliefs are founded on a layman's understanding -and nearly a pop culturalist view- of some terms used in the new testament. And then what of the new testament disproves their beliefs they simply changed in their own translation to reflect their views.

I'd add that The Great Controversy presents Catholicism as a great enemy to "the true church" at a time when the Catholic Church was hardly even aware of the existence of Seventh Day Adventists. And a similar comment can be made about Jehovah's witnesses and what they call "Christendom". When Charles Taze Russell founded the religion hardly anyone was aware of them, they were a tiny group calling themselves Bible Students.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The irony of the subject here, is that there are far more wide spread mythologies masquerading as history that a lot of people don't even recognize as mythologies. "The love of money is the root of all evil." You want to know what's genuine history and what's propaganda; follow the money!

 

[bbbbbbb]

The irony of the subject here, is that there are far more wide spread mythologies masquerading as history that a lot of people don't even recognize as mythologies. "The love of money is the root of all evil." You want to know what's genuine history and what's propaganda; follow the money!

My thought precisely. Thank you!

 

[ViaCrucis]

While it is a fair assessment to note that "history is written by the victors", and thus we can recognize the biases of history; but it is quite another thing to simply throw all the history books in the fire and simply make up an alternative story that fits whatever one wants.

Are historical sources biased? Of course they are. Every work written by human beings contains a bias. But the alternative to biased history isn't burning the history books, but taking such bias into account in our study of history.

If one were to take two contemporary works on the war which led to the thirteen colonies in America becoming independent, one British and one American, we will have two biased works of history. That, however, doesn't make either work useless; but rather provides us with the perspectives of those writing the work, but still writing about real things that happened.

Bias does not eliminate the value of history; it is simply something to be consciously aware of when doing historical study.

So, as an example, are official Church sources going to have a bias when writing about certain groups (e.g. ancient Gnostics, medieval Cathars, et al) of course. But that doesn't mean that we can just make up whatever we want about those groups to suit whatever agenda we might want.

Of course official sources will depict the Cathars in a negative light, but that doesn't mean that the Cathars were actually Baptists, their rites, their beliefs, their practices, etc can still be ascertained. And ascertaining that, it's clear that no Baptist today would want to be associated with the Cathars, or with the Bogomils, or with the Paulicians, etc.

Bias is not an excuse to throw history books in fire. Again, bias is simply something the honest historian has to take into account when studying history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Trail of Blood is a hoax.

Baptists, Mennonites and the Amish are the first to denounce other Christian denominations persecuting them...stating it is hard to forgive Protestants for the deaths of their brethren.

Well, there is persecution and death and then there is the real PERSECUTION AND DEATH. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) between the Lutherans and the Rome. What started out as a religious issue turned political and called "Total War" in Europe where all the countries participated except England. A "total war" is where the economy of each country shuts down, and starts back up only to support war. There have only been three "total wars" in Europe, WWI and WW2 the others.

The Thirty Years war was mainly fought on German soil, and it is estimated at minimum four million people perished. Some estimates go as high as eight million. Due to the nature of this war, much of Germany suffered from "scorched earth" destruction and Germany also Roman Catholic lands didn't recover for 150 years.

Millions of Lutherans and Roman Catholics suffered during that war. Baptist claims pale in comparison.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Baptists, Mennonites and the Amish are the first to denounce other Christian denominations persecuting them...stating it is hard to forgive Protestants for the deaths of their brethren.

Well, there is persecution and death and then there is the real PERSECUTION AND DEATH. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) between the Lutherans and the Rome. What started out as a religious issue turned political and called "Total War" in Europe where all the countries participated except England. A "total war" is where the economy of each country shuts down, and starts back up only to support war. There have only been three "total wars" in Europe, WWI and WW2 the others.

The Thirty Years war was mainly fought on German soil, and it is estimated at minimum four million people perished. Some estimates go as high as eight million. Due to the nature of this war, much of Germany suffered from "scorched earth" destruction and Germany also Roman Catholic lands didn't recover for 150 years.

Millions of Lutherans and Roman Catholics suffered during that war. Baptist claims pale in comparison.

It is one of the sad commentaries on modern education that there is so very little history being taught today. As it has been observed, those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it.

 

[The Liturgist]

One example of the Mythic history of the church Genre in literature is "The trail of blood"

The Trail of Blood is a 1931 book by American Southern Baptist minister James Milton Carroll, comprising a collection of five lectures he gave on the history of Baptist churches, which he presented as a succession from the first Christians. The work has been criticized for linking together numerous unrelated sects and historical heresies that have no relation to Baptist theology or polity.​

Others are "The Great Controversy"

The book begins with a historical overview, which begins with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, covers the Reformation and Advent movement in detail, and culminates with a lengthy description of the end times. It also outlines several key Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, including the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment and the state of the dead.​

And "Jehovah's Witnesses : proclaimers of God's kingdom"

Summary: Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom is a 749 page book that is published by Jehovah's Witnesses which gives a detailed history of the organization and organizational structure, various schools, assemblies and programs, literature, as well as a section on persecution, and problems within the organization itself.​

Each book purports to give a history of Christianity, each has sources from which very tenuous ancestry for the denomination or religion is drawn, and each book proclaims that the denomination or religion it advocates for is The church that Jesus Christ founded.

I think that all three of the ones I have mentioned are mythic rather than historic and all three are fundamentally incorrect.

I haven’t read the J/W book, but considering that their New World Bible rewrites John 1, it frightens me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I haven’t read the J/W book, but considering that their New World Bible rewrites John 1, it frightens me.

I agree entirely with you. In the few encounters I have had with JW missionaries at my door I am convinced of the deep spiritual bondage these people are under. I would go so far to say that it is thoroughly demonic in its basic nature.

 

[The Liturgist]

Baptists, Mennonites and the Amish are the first to denounce other Christian denominations persecuting them...stating it is hard to forgive Protestants for the deaths of their brethren.

Well, there is persecution and death and then there is the real PERSECUTION AND DEATH. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) between the Lutherans and the Rome. What started out as a religious issue turned political and called "Total War" in Europe where all the countries participated except England. A "total war" is where the economy of each country shuts down, and starts back up only to support war. There have only been three "total wars" in Europe, WWI and WW2 the others.

The Thirty Years war was mainly fought on German soil, and it is estimated at minimum four million people perished. Some estimates go as high as eight million. Due to the nature of this war, much of Germany suffered from "scorched earth" destruction and Germany also Roman Catholic lands didn't recover for 150 years.

Millions of Lutherans and Roman Catholics suffered during that war. Baptist claims pale in comparison.

Also the persecution of Eastern Christians during the Crusades, when Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians in Syria were killed and eaten in cannibalism in the First Crusade when the crusaders were low on food. And the Fourth Crusade was just a pretext for the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by Venice.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Trail of Blood is a hoax. The author collected up the names of most any heretical group he could find and then spun it to make it seem like each of them was a continuation of the other down through history until finally reaching his own particular group. By doing that he laid claim to being the original Church. His 'research" is riddled with easily provable falsehoods. No one takes it seriously.

The Great Controversy is another tall tale. But you'll find that The Trail of Blood and The Great Controversy (much like the Book of Mormon) have one thing in common, that being the authors' hatred of the Roman Church. Both perspectives paint an "us against them" conflict between themselves and Roman Catholicism. The gaping hole in their ideas is their lack of knowledge of the Eastern Churches. They are entirely Western-centric. That demonstrates a complete lack of universal knowledge. They are centered entirely on what little information the writers have about the Church in general and are told from that limited perspective..

The Jehovah's Witnesses really aren't worth mentioning. Some of their core beliefs are founded on a layman's understanding -and nearly a pop culturalist view- of some terms used in the new testament. And then what of the new testament disproves their beliefs they simply changed in their own translation to reflect their views.

Indeed, the lack of awareness of the Eastern churches in The Great Controversy in particular discredits it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I haven’t read the J/W book, but considering that their New World Bible rewrites John 1, it frightens me.

It's an inhouse "history". Nicely sanitized. Full of "encouraging stories" of the founding of "Jehovah's Organisation" and so forth. If one were one of Jehovah's witnesses it would be a lovely encouraging story of the way Jehovah provides for his witnesses.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Each book purports to give a history of Christianity, each has sources from which very tenuous ancestry for the denomination or religion is drawn, and each book proclaims that the denomination or religion it advocates for is The church that Jesus Christ founded.

I think that all three of the ones I have mentioned are mythic rather than historic and all three are fundamentally incorrect.

Let's not forget Hislop's "Two Babylons" and Jack Chick tracts which those of us with an interest in accurate theology have to argue on these boards all the freakin time.

But everyone over the ages has depicted the "other" as in league with the devil.
Luther with the devil, woodcut 1555.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's been forever, but when I was a baptist, I never could find anyone who actually believed that trail of blood thing. It may just be an internet thing that spread like a weed.

Haven't heard from JWs in years, I think I saw a series of "non-approaching" presentations set up over canadian thanksgiving weekend. I find the strategy with the best results is to talk on and on about the bible, but don't mention the gospel of John and every so often touch on verses that illustrate trinity.

Mormons, I read their book for a bit, it was a history of all the false prophets since Jeremiah. The narrator was unreliable. It wasn't hard to see it's a completely different religion.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's been forever, but when I was a baptist, I never could find anyone who actually believed that trail of blood thing. It may just be an internet thing that spread like a weed.

Haven't heard from JWs in years, I think I saw a series of "non-approaching" presentations set up over canadian thanksgiving weekend. I find the strategy with the best results is to talk on and on about the bible, but don't mention the gospel of John and every so often touch on verses that illustrate trinity.

Mormons, I read their book for a bit, it was a history of all the false prophets since Jeremiah. The narrator was unreliable. It wasn't hard to see it's a completely different religion.

I agree. In my various interactions I have discovered that the best defence is to get them off script. They have been carefully scripted to respond to standard questions as well as to present their narrative. I remember one time when I had been doing some study of the book of Revelation where I was coming to the conclusion that the primary purpose of the book was to reveal the person and work of Jesus Christ, all of which is deeply centers on His divinity. Some JW's came to my door and I asked them if they worshiped Jesus Christ. Of course they do not because they believe only Jehovah is worthy of worship. I then opened Revelation to them and revealed several of the multitude of verses wherein the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, is worshiped. It did not take long before they scampered.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

It's been forever, but when I was a baptist, I never could find anyone who actually believed that trail of blood thing. It may just be an internet thing that spread like a weed.

Haven't heard from JWs in years, I think I saw a series of "non-approaching" presentations set up over canadian thanksgiving weekend. I find the strategy with the best results is to talk on and on about the bible, but don't mention the gospel of John and every so often touch on verses that illustrate trinity.

Mormons, I read their book for a bit, it was a history of all the false prophets since Jeremiah. The narrator was unreliable. It wasn't hard to see it's a completely different religion.

Last time the JWs stopped by, I was just getting home in my cassock. They skipped my house.

 

[The Liturgist]

Last time the JWs stopped by, I was just getting home in my cassock. They skipped my house.

Cassocks insulate one against J/w annoyances.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's been forever, but when I was a baptist, I never could find anyone who actually believed that trail of blood thing. It may just be an internet thing that spread like a weed.

Haven't heard from JWs in years, I think I saw a series of "non-approaching" presentations set up over canadian thanksgiving weekend. I find the strategy with the best results is to talk on and on about the bible, but don't mention the gospel of John and every so often touch on verses that illustrate trinity.

Mormons, I read their book for a bit, it was a history of all the false prophets since Jeremiah. The narrator was unreliable. It wasn't hard to see it's a completely different religion.

The majority of Baptists have never subscribed to Landmarkism. It emerged in the 19th century, and has been historically rejected by most Baptists as nonsense. Which is why you'll only find it among a fringe minority of Baptists.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Cassocks insulate one against J/w annoyances.

They can have their downside as most people have an inherent tendency to avoid conversations with clergy.