The Dark Ages Myth

[ViaCrucis]

I've heard it said that Martin Luther was the last medieval theologian, while John Calvin was the first modern theologian.

I'd say with the Renaissance and the development of European nationalism marks roughly the transition from the medieval period to the early modern period. But, I agree with the assessment that it's largely arbitrary. What we call various historical periods is a matter largely of convenience, and it is often geography specific.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Armoured]

I've heard it said that Martin Luther was the last medieval theologian, while John Calvin was the first modern theologian.

I'd say with the Renaissance and the development of European nationalism marks roughly the transition from the medieval period to the early modern period. But, I agree with the assessment that it's largely arbitrary. What we call various historical periods is a matter largely of convenience, and it is often geography specific.

-CryptoLutheran

The problem is that people really like things to fit in clearly defined, well delineated boxes. Things that gradually merge from one into another mess up our whole mental catalogue.

 

[Radagast]

Yes. But that's rather recent appreciation. For a long time in academia, and still in popular culture, the Mediaeval period was regarded as a time off in it's own bubble, largely unaffected by what went before

That's often an attitude held by people who know little of the period. They might know about monks copying out books, but they don't really think about what books they were.

and not really contributing to what came after

Michael Crichton has a good response to that, in his novel Timeline:

"He had a term for people like this: temporal provincials – people who were ignorant of the past, and proud of it.

Temporal provincials were convinced that the present was the only time that mattered, and that anything that had occurred earlier could be safely ignored. The modern world was compelling and new, and the past had no bearing on it. Studying history was as pointless as learning Morse code, or how to drive a horse-drawn wagon. And the medieval period – all those knights in clanking armor and ladies in gowns and pointy hats – was so obviously irrelevant as to be beneath consideration.

Yet the truth was that the modern world was invented in the Middle Ages. Everything from the legal system, to nation-states, to reliance on technology, to the concept of romantic love had first been established in medieval times. These stockbrokers owed the very notion of a market economy to the Middle Ages, and if they didn’t know that, then they didn’t know the basic facts of who they were. Why they did what they did. Where they had come from.

Professor Johnston often said that if you didn’t know history, you didn’t know anything. You were a leaf that didn’t know it was part of a tree."

 

[Radagast]

I'd say with the Renaissance and the development of European nationalism marks roughly the transition from the medieval period to the early modern period.

Which Renaissance? I believe there were about four, the first being the Carolingian Renaissance starting around 780. Pick that for an endpoint, and you can shrink the Middle Ages down to just 250 years.

There's someone on the thread who thinks that St. Gereon's Basilica in Köln (1227) is post-Medieval, which is almost as bad.

Then again, if you take a change in attitude as the key factor, that probably happened at different times in different places.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Which Renaissance? I believe there were about four, the first being the Carolingian Renaissance starting around 780. Pick that for an endpoint, and you can shrink the Middle Ages down to just 250 years.

Those were only called Renaissances from the example of THE Renaissance, the Italian one.

There's someone on the thread who thinks that St. Gereon's Basilica in Köln (1227) is post-Medieval, which is almost as bad.

Then again, if you take a change in attitude as the key factor, that probably happened at different times in different places.

Who is this person?
I never said it wasn't Mediaeval. It is just that a Romanesque dome of 16m (vs. Florence's Duomo of 45m or Hagia Sophia's 76m) is not a large dome nor is it Gothic architecture - which supposedly allowed fantastic mediaeval domes to be built. So I am still waiting on my large mediaeval dome and to be fair my pre 8th century Algebra amongst other things as well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which Renaissance? I believe there were about four, the first being the Carolingian Renaissance starting around 780. Pick that for an endpoint, and you can shrink the Middle Ages down to just 250 years.

There's someone on the thread who thinks that St. Gereon's Basilica in Köln (1227) is post-Medieval, which is almost as bad.

Then again, if you take a change in attitude as the key factor, that probably happened at different times in different places.

The Italian Renaissance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

The Italian Renaissance.

And what date do you put on that? If you pick, say, 1300, as the end of the Middle Ages, then the entire period known as the Late Middle Ages vanishes.

 

[masmpg]

The "Dark Ages" had nothing to do with the Inquisition. Indeed, historians don't really use the term "dark ages" any more, but when they DID, the dark ages were considered to end in 1066 when Harald Hardrader was defeated at Stamford Bridge.

The term refers specifically to the lack of extant documentation from the time, making it "dark" in the sense of "difficult to see clearly", not in the sense of any sort of value judgement about events of the time.

Indeed the times were "dark" all the way through Tyndale in the 16th century. As long as the RCC hid the scriptures from the public is how long the dark ages lasted, and that was a long time. No matter how many attempts to erase this time period it will never happen. I even look at our time as still in the dark ages because of all the history that the vatican has stolen through the times of their treachery. The vatican has no right to keep the true history form the public, they stole it during their conquests.

 

[tz620q]

I even look at our time as still in the dark ages because of all the history that the vatican has stolen through the times of their treachery. The vatican has no right to keep the true history form the public, they stole it during their conquests.

If I asked you for an example of this stolen history, you would probably say that there is no way of knowing since it is hidden in the Vatican Archives, therefore creating a great conspiracy theory that cannot be debunked because the proof is hidden. Or maybe you have read some of this stolen history somewhere and can quote your source? That would lend some support to your theory outside of the circular reasoning above.

 

[masmpg]

If I asked you for an example of this stolen history, you would probably say that there is no way of knowing since it is hidden in the Vatican Archives, therefore creating a great conspiracy theory that cannot be debunked because the proof is hidden. Or maybe you have read some of this stolen history somewhere and can quote your source? That would lend some support to your theory outside of the circular reasoning above.

Please watch one of the many videos on you tube. The church is not hiding the fact that they have all the history stored away in their "archives"! Here is one of the interesting videos that cannot be denied. The proof is in the pictures. The vatican is an extremely rich organization, opposite of Jesus, who profess to be the mouth piece of God, the "vicar of Christ" as they call themselves.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And what date do you put on that? If you pick, say, 1300, as the end of the Middle Ages, then the entire period known as the Late Middle Ages vanishes.

I was referring to the period between the Renaissance and the rise of European nationalism as a transition from the middle ages to the early modern period. If I were to give a more narrow time frame, I'd say the late 15th, maybe early 16th century for the actual end of the medieval period. I'd say the hallmarks of the early modern period would be European nationalism, the Reformation (which I think is a major factor in said nationalism), the age of Discovery and colonialism, and later the rise of the Enlightenment.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tz620q]

Please watch one of the many videos on you tube. The church is not hiding the fact that they have all the history stored away in their "archives"! Here is one of the interesting videos that cannot be denied. The proof is in the pictures. The vatican is an extremely rich organization, opposite of Jesus, who profess to be the mouth piece of God, the "vicar of Christ" as they call themselves.

All the history? If you studied the history of the archives you would see that most of these documents are Catholic Church documents and probably not of much use to modern research. Also, the archives are a private library of the Catholic Church. Why would you think that this private library should be open to every Tom, Dick, and Harry? It is open to those who have training in handling ancient documents and who have a valid need to use them for research. So in that way it is not closed completely. Finally, I find it odd that this should even be an issue for you, since the Catholic Church has chosen to preserve these documents for centuries, therefore obviously not trying to hide them, since the most effective way to do that would be to destroy them.

As far as extremely rich, if I lived in the time of the French Impressionists, I could have bought a Renoir for several dollars that would be worth millions today. Does that make me rich or does it make me a patron of the arts at that time, promoting artistic development? What was my original intent, not your modern day take on it?

 

[masmpg]

All the history? If you studied the history of the archives you would see that most of these documents are Catholic Church documents and probably not of much use to modern research. Also, the archives are a private library of the Catholic Church. Why would you think that this private library should be open to every Tom, Dick, and Harry? It is open to those who have training in handling ancient documents and who have a valid need to use them for research. So in that way it is not closed completely. Finally, I find it odd that this should even be an issue for you, since the Catholic Church has chosen to preserve these documents for centuries, therefore obviously not trying to hide them, since the most effective way to do that would be to destroy them.

As far as extremely rich, if I lived in the time of the French Impressionists, I could have bought a Renoir for several dollars that would be worth millions today. Does that make me rich or does it make me a patron of the arts at that time, promoting artistic development? What was my original intent, not your modern day take on it?

I did not say that they should let people in, but they can copy all relevant data that pertains to our human heritage. Here is a 60 minutes report on how lucrative the churches things are and who they came from. It is our right as God''s creation to desire truth. My life has been a long quest for truth. Not opinionated suppositions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-rare-look-at-the-vatican-librarys-treasures-25-12-2011/

Another black spot in the catholic church (Roman Empire) is their handling of important information and such. Not only did Julius Caesar burn the Alexandrian library but Nero burned the library in Rome. I admit that these emperors were not the catholic church but the popes did step up onto the throne of the Caesars in around 538 AD.

The riches of the church are far from Christian. If people are starving to death on this planet and the "church" that is suppose to be the representative of God on earth is rich beyond calculation??? There is something wrong with this picture no matter when the acquired the wealth. This is the main reason I left the RCC. I could not reconcile the popemobile with a barefooted Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Another black spot in the catholic church (Roman Empire)

Nope.

I admit that these emperors were not the catholic church but the popes did step up onto the throne of the Caesars in around 538 AD.

And nope again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tz620q]

I did not say that they should let people in, but they can copy all relevant data that pertains to our human heritage. Here is a 60 minutes report on how lucrative the churches things are and who they came from. It is our right as God''s creation to desire truth. My life has been a long quest for truth. Not opinionated suppositions.

I think I saw that episode. I can't view it now; but I think the reporter was amazed at how much access he was given, even being shown a few pages of the Codex Vaticanus, which is one of the earliest extant manuscripts of the Bible. The curator of the library was also careful to convey to him the importance of the proper handling of vellum, paper, and papyrus documents that should have decayed to dust long ago if not protected. This curator also mentioned the many people on staff whose job was to preserve and restore these documents. Maybe you saw a different segment.

The riches of the church are far from Christian. If people are starving to death on this planet and the "church" that is suppose to be the representative of God on earth is rich beyond calculation??? There is something wrong with this picture no matter when the acquired the wealth. This is the main reason I left the RCC. I could not reconcile the popemobile with a barefooted Jesus.

Really?? You left the Catholic Church with no outside interference because you suddenly became miffed that a bunch of Italians were sitting on ancient treasures? That argument alone is foreign to how nearly all Catholics think; because we give each year to charities that do indeed help the poor. Giving is not only about helping the poor, which Jesus said would always be with us. It is also about showing love of neighbor. So it helps sanctify the giver as well. If we thought that the Pope, who doesn't own one small bit of the Vatican or it's treasures, should sell these and we should pocket what we normally give and have him pay our charitable contributions out of that, then we are being hardhearted louts.

 

[masmpg]

I think I saw that episode. I can't view it now; but I think the reporter was amazed at how much access he was given, even being shown a few pages of the Codex Vaticanus, which is one of the earliest extant manuscripts of the Bible. The curator of the library was also careful to convey to him the importance of the proper handling of vellum, paper, and papyrus documents that should have decayed to dust long ago if not protected. This curator also mentioned the many people on staff whose job was to preserve and restore these documents. Maybe you saw a different segment.

Really?? You left the Catholic Church with no outside interference because you suddenly became miffed that a bunch of Italians were sitting on ancient treasures? That argument alone is foreign to how nearly all Catholics think; because we give each year to charities that do indeed help the poor. Giving is not only about helping the poor, which Jesus said would always be with us. It is also about showing love of neighbor. So it helps sanctify the giver as well. If we thought that the Pope, who doesn't own one small bit of the Vatican or it's treasures, should sell these and we should pocket what we normally give and have him pay our charitable contributions out of that, then we are being hardhearted louts.

I did not mention the poor did I? I said the starving to death. How many millions are starving to death on this planet daily? For any denominational leader to have more wealth than they can ever spend and people are starving to death they are far from Christ. I am not only talking the vatican, but also the likes of copeland, and all the prosperity gospel preachers who live in splendor while Jesus never had a home to go to.

This is not just a "bunch of italians". The RCC makes huge boasts about being the vicar of Christ. If they were the vicar of Christ there would be nobody starving to death. I care less about worldlings who are filthy rich, once they make a profession of faith in Christ their riches do not belong to them any more. God loans us our goods. Those who have wealth have it as a test to see what they will do with it. Far too many are failing that test.

Yes the splendor of the vatican, not the pope, is what was most influential in me leaving the RCC. I could not reconcile the huge contrast between Jesus and the pope. And I know well what catholics are taught to think of the pope. Vicarius Filii Del, or vicar of the Son of God. These titles alone border on blasphemy, especially when the splendor is held up in store, when Christ said to the rich young ruler "go sell what ye have and give to the poor, and you will have eternal life".

The reason the second commandment is deleted from the catechism is very obvious too. The relics, and shrines, statues that litter all the catholic buildings.

 

[tz620q]

Yes the splendor of the vatican, not the pope, is what was most influential in me leaving the RCC. I could not reconcile the huge contrast between Jesus and the pope. And I know well what catholics are taught to think of the pope. Vicarius Filii Del, or vicar of the Son of God. These titles alone border on blasphemy, especially when the splendor is held up in store, when Christ said to the rich young ruler "go sell what ye have and give to the poor, and you will have eternal life".

The reason the second commandment is deleted from the catechism is very obvious too. The relics, and shrines, statues that litter all the catholic buildings.

Both of these, Vicarius Filii Dei and the deletion of the second commandment are common SDA myths and tend to point to an outside influence on your leaving the church.

 

[tz620q]

I did not mention the poor did I? I said the starving to death. How many millions are starving to death on this planet daily? For any denominational leader to have more wealth than they can ever spend and people are starving to death they are far from Christ. I am not only talking the vatican, but also the likes of copeland, and all the prosperity gospel preachers who live in splendor while Jesus never had a home to go to.

Where I live the SDA's have camps, churches, special stores for their food, etc. Why don't they sell these and donate to the starving? You seem to be caught in a worldly trap, where wealth and poverty are the equivalent of good and evil. The odd thing is that in Jesus' time there was an even larger concentration of wealth in Rome and yet he never mentioned doing what you advocate.

 

[masmpg]

Both of these, Vicarius Filii Dei and the deletion of the second commandment are common SDA myths and tend to point to an outside influence on your leaving the church.

Deleting the second commandment is no myth. Here it is from the "vatican archives"' Read it for yourself. The catechism is far different than the ten commandments as given by God in Exodus 20. Both versions are compared on this page: The right column is from the catechism and the second commandment is not even there.

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

 

[ViaCrucis]

Deleting the second commandment is no myth. Here it is from the "vatican archives"' Read it for yourself. The catechism is far different than the ten commandments as given by God in Exodus 20. Both versions are compared on this page: The right column is from the catechism and the second commandment is not even there.

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

Catholics and Lutherans use the numbering of the Decalogue which St. Augustine came up with. In the 16th century John Calvin came up with a different numbering, that's the numbering that most Protestants use today.

The first commandment, as has been known by Christians in the West for the last 1,600 years is as follows:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

And the second is as follows:

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

You'll notice of course that Exodus 20 doesn't number the commandments, the numbering of the Decalogue is something that later biblical expositors did, and Jews, Catholics/Lutherans, Orthodox, and Protestants all have slightly different ways to number the Decalogue.

What you do with this information is up to you. But as for the claim that Catholics "removed the second commandment" that is an objectively false statement.

-CryptoLutheran