Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Maybe, but that's not the way I'm betting. Yes, it is corrupted. And it got all those corruptions over the course of 300 years or so. Providing evidence that Christians believed they could tinker. Which would imply later texts are less trustworthy as there has been more time for tinkering. He was a dictator. Is that a lie? Do 'good Christian's' typically torture women, and when they resist confessing, say that proves they are guilty?

quote:

---

further experience daylie proues how loath they are to confesse without torture, which witnesseth their guiltine

---

What about medical professionals?

quote:

---

Lastly he was put to the most seuere and cruell paine in the world, called the bootes, who after he had receiued three strokes, being enquired if he would confesse his damnable acts and wicked life,

---

'The bootes' were a device that crushed the feet.But of course they weren't finished with him yet. The king approvingly continues:

quote:

---

His nailes vpon all his fingers were riuen and pulled off with an instrument called in Scottish a Turkas, which in England wee call a payre of pincers, and vnder euerie nayle there was thrust in two needels ouer euen up to the heads. At all which tormentes notwithstanding the Doctor neuer shronke anie whit, neither woulde he then confesse it the sooner for all the tortures inflicted vpon him.

​

Then was hee with all conuenient speed, by commandement, conuaied againe to the torment of the bootes, wherein hee continued a long time, and did abide so many blowes in them, that his legges were crushte and beaten togeather as small as might bee, and the bones and flesh so brused, that the bloud and marrowe spouted forth in great abundance, whereby they were made unseruiceable for euer. And notwithstanding al these grieuous paines and cruell torments hee would not confesse anie thing, so deepely had the deuill entered into his heart, that hee vtterly denied all that which he had before auouched, and woulde saie nothing therevnto but this, that what hee had done and sayde before, was onely done and sayde for feare of paynes which he had endured.

---

Of course, the consequence of all this was

quote:

---

Wherevpon hee was put into a carte, and beeing first strangled, hee was immediatly put into a great fire, being readie prouided for that purpose, and there burned in the Castle hill of Edenbrough on a saterdaie in the ende of Ianuarie last past. 1591. The rest of the witches which are not yet executed, remayne in prison till farther triall, and knowledge of his maiesties pleasure.

---

So, good Christians are clearly horrendous sadists. If they ever got into power, they would dissolve the government if it displeased them and rule without one for 7 years as dictator. The things you teach me, Faith. Well, you know, when you force other Christians to deny their beliefs or suffer torture and execution, people will say bad things about you. Fortunately, the words above are James' own words so I guess you don't get to make that argument there.

Where are you getting that slander against King James? What source?That sounds like the Inquisition though, they were definitely sadists.The Codex isn't Christian at all, it's corrupt. It was "discovered" in a monastery at Mt. Sinai. It was rejected by the Church until the end of the 19th century when some apostate revisers decided to make use of it. You really obviously don't know what you are talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't they have Google in your country?I even told you were I got it. From James VI of Scotland. In his book: Daemonologie. Printed by Robert Walde-graue, Printer to the Kings Majestie. An. 1597.Cum Privilegio Regio. It does doesn't it? Bloody Good Christians. I didn't say it was Christian. I said Christians tinkered with it. I know know, they probably didn't torture people and then kill them - but they meet my definition of the word Christian which is good because I was the one using it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Like that he was gay?

Yes that is a lie too. I did a blog post on this subject a while back, featuring a talk by a pastor who had done some research into King James I. He based most of it on a book by a Stephen Coston who did years of research, and here is something Coston wrote on the bad scholarship on King James that he discovered in his research.

"Christians tinkered with it." What are you talking about? The Codex is probably a forgery, certainly corrupt by whatever method, Christians didn't use it at all ever, let alone "tinker with it" and it wasn't even known until the 19th century and then it got incorporated into all the modern Bibles.I guess I missed your reference to James' book on Demonology. I'm going to have to see what I can find about that now. Please see the post I just wrote to Theodoric about how James I has been slandered by his biographers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say nothing at all about the context of the quotes in the book about demonology. Sounds to me like he's describing something he witnessed. He apparently did attend some trials of witches.So I found an online copy of his book here and found that it is written in the form of a dialogue.And searching with a couple of your terms did not find that passage in this copy.Here's a whole website dedicated to King James: King James I of England (VI of Scotland) Page Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Is there some kind of context where a Christian can justify crushing someone's legs so much, their marrow spills out? That's right. And a discourse. Try a more scholarly source, rather than an obviously biased one - as your site omits the end of the thirde booke.Like Project Gutenberg, which includes Newes from Scotland as the correct and original ending.It's funny - since the Preface tells you this:

quote:

---

and the thirde, conteines a discourse of all these kindes of spirits, and Spectres that appeares and trobles persones: together with a conclusion of the whol work. My intention in this labour, is only to prove two things, as I have already said: the one, that such divelish artes have bene and are. The other, what exact triale and severe punishment they merite:

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I can't think of anybody in the 4th-6th Centuries that had power, money, education and motivation enough to make it, maintain it perhaps purchase it - other than Christians.So the original scribes and the correctors were probably Christians working for another Christian (or Christians). How have you ascertained this? Bayesian Reasoning? Please, off you go. And you know this because... It wasn't known to scholars. But since Biblical scholarship really started to kick off in the 19th Century, I fail to see your point.It was found at a monastery, in one of the largest libraries of ancient texts in the world. It's a good job I'm not relying on his biographers then isn't it?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But this makes no sense. This is one manuscript found in the 19th century that is dated to the 4th century despite the fact that they have no evidence for that other than subjective assessments of the style of the writing, it differs in many ways from the thousands of manuscripts on which the KJV was based, it suffers from an amazing array of corrections of all kinds, and according to Dean Burgon was rejected by the Church as a corrupted text, which he attributed to early gnostic tampering.As for the idea that it could be a forgery there was a huge flap about that soon after it was discovered, as a Greek paleographer wrote a letter to one of the British newspapers claiming it was his own work. Not a forgery exactly, he was making it as a gift, but not an early authentic manuscript as was being claimed for it. There was an exchange of letters in that paper that went on for a couple of years about it, others of course calling him a liar and so on. Nobody bothered to check his many references to people involved who could have given support to his story. It's an odd story, which raises many questions, but as I've become aware of it the man sounds quite sincere, he certainly had nothing to gain by his claims, had the skill for the job, was a very accomplished paleographer who in fact had the Greek original of the Shepherd of Hermas that was found in the Codex Sinaiticus ms and many other clues to the possibly authenticity of his claims. The odd things are that this is an "Alexandrian" thpe of text and the Greek monastery where he claims to have done the work and the monastery where it ended up as well, would have used the Textus Receptus rather than the Alexandrian. Also it's very odd that there should be so many corrections in a manuscript he was purportedly making for the Czar of Russia. Nevertheless his story, odd as it is, does seem to hold together as far as it goes. And when you consider that there would have been people who wanted to see the KJV overthrown or at leas cast into doubt, which this manuscript in many ways did accomplish, that would explain why he was so ferociously criticized. Rather similar to the King James story.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But let me guess that you were clued to this quote by an anti-King-James source, and since you give no context or even an accessible link, it certainly looks like a put-up to me. He is describing the torture of a person considered to be a witch, that he apparently witnessed or knew about, as part of his investigation into demonology. The copy I found of the book either doesn't have that passage or I just can't find it with the words from your quote, but in any case the book is basically about everything known about demons that he could put together, a scholarly study by a king. In that passage he is interested in the fact that the person wouldn't recant even under torture. There's nothing at all to warrant your accusation of sadism.Back to Codex Sinaiticus you obviously know nothing about its story. It wasn't known to ANYBODY, not just scholars. If Tischendorf, who claimed to have found it, can be trusted, it was in a wastebasket being used for fire kindling and he rescued it. Supposedly it had been in the monastery for years without anybody even looking at it. This is one of the clues that it was recognized as corrupt.Tischendorf's story is doubted even by people who accept the ms. as authentic. What the real story is who knows, but the whole business is very shady it seems to me.Anyway your remark about scholarship just getting started is irrelevant. The manuscript wasn't available at all to anyone for centuries at least, even if it is ancient.Obviously you know nothing about any of this, you're making it all up as you go.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The man goes to a trial of witches, either witnesses or hears about this torture, reports it in his book and is called a sadist by someone five hundred years later.King James believed that demon-possessed people could do terrible damage in the world and should be punished. We wouldn't see it his way even if we believe in such phenomena, which I do. So I'm sure I'll be appalled at what he was able to accept as reasonable punishment, but I still think you are way out of line to criticize a man from a time so utterly different from yours, who probably shared his views with many of his day, and did absolutely nothing himself to participate in these things.One thing I want to find out more about is a report that he'd been supernaturally attacked himself and this was behind his interest in witches. He was a king you know and he had enemies. The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt by Catholic conspirators to kill him and blow up Parliament, which is still sort of celebrated as Guy Fawkes day in your country isn't it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The obvious answer is no. But... I find your position completely incredible. One might make similar excuses for those "pseudo Christians" who owned slaves and otherwise absolutely detested colored people back before and after the civil war, or for the Inquisition but of course, you don't do that.Yet your heroes get all of the understanding and forgiveness you can muster. Puritans execute and ostracize Quakers until England puts a stop to it, and you say that it was not the leadership, but a few misguided folks. That is despite the fact that their legislature enacted laws to persecute and murder Quakers.Protestants execute witches over a period of about 15 years and to you it's all some mass hysteria. (No it was not just during the Salem Witch Hunt). You excuse Martin Luther's blatant anti-semitism as understandable and honorable service for Jesus.Just what is it that that you won't find reason to forgive for 'the good guys' ? A king attending a witch trial isn't he same thing as you or I doing the same thing. A king insisting on the divine rights of kings isn't merely a man of his times. And he isn't just a 'good man' despite his evil. Off on your own witch hunt, are you?Same pattern from you. First denial, then excuses. For protestants only. According to you, mentioning merely mentioning that protestants did the bad stuff they actually did makes a person an evil propagandist liar.The truth is that witches don't have super powers. Period. People who aren't superstitious know that the only human on earth with the super human ability to put other humans in the dust is Usain Bolt, and his powers will fade with time. And it is not excusable that the basis of your superstition is from the Bible.If you do your research, you'll find that King James is at least as beyond any reasonable excuses as the execution of Giordano Bruno is beyond the excuses of the Catholic Church. But you'll still manage to do one and not the other.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

By anti-King-James source you mean 'British education', then I guess so. He was, in a way, Britain's founding father after all. I didn't know the specifics before the debate but I knew that James had ordered the torture and execution of witches. But rather than rely on http://www.atheistsarecool.com like you might have done (probably different url though) I read around the subject a little bit.The History Learning Site Covering All Historical Topics
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWere some sites I looked at according to my internet history. Eventually having read his account was in his book, then I did this search:Books: daemonologie (sorted by popularity) - Project Gutenberg Yes, he is. Indeed, one of those tortures (Agnes Sampson) occurred at Holyrood House under his direction. He approved of their treatment. Right, and I told you that the copy you had omits it, and is clearly pro-James biased. I think you call it a whitewash. Project Gutenberg has no stake in the James debate, my link went straight to the start of Newes From Scotland. It's 5,000 words of omission. I bet you get upset about the omission of Mark 16:9-20 as a vile corruption of the holy etc. Anyway at 5,000 words it is shorter than the first letter to the Corinthians. You know how Christians like yourself have a go at atheists for not reading the whole Bible in its context? You should try reading at least a few sections of the Newes from Scotland to avoid that same accusation along with some reference to beams and eyes.Newes from Scotland describes what should be done with sorcerers and witches. Torture them until they confess (and maybe torture them some more to confirm the confession) and then kill them. Well no. He says that by not confessing freely, and only confessing under torture this proves they are guilty.

quote:

---

Where are you getting that slander against King James? What source?

​

That sounds like the Inquisition though, they were definitely sadists.

---

I think a man who tortures people and then executes them is a sadist.
You think a man who tortures people and then executes them is a 'good Christian'...unless they were Catholic or God forbid - Muslim.If that's how you want to be, I'm not going to stop you. Well, it seems you obviously know next to nothing about King James. But why don't you educate me on the Codex... A universal negative with no evidence presented. Interesting. Well not quite. The Codex is huge. He actually described what he thought to be a little over 120 sheets.I'm sure there are books in the Vatican that have not been looked at for years. I'm not sure what you think your point is. You'll have to join the dots for me. Why is an ancient book in a large library in the middle of nowhere not having been read or even noticed for some time a clue that it is corrupt?The Aleppo Codex (early 11th century) sat in a cupboard or an iron chest for centuries, is that evidence of its corruption?Are the centuries of corrections in Codex Bezae evidence of its corruption? What's shady about it? A professor extraordinarius, specializing in the New Testament, with a mission to locate ancient manuscripts thinks to himself 'whether it was not probable that in some recess of Greek or Coptic, Syrian or Armenian monasteries, there might be some precious manuscripts slumbering for ages in dust and darkness? And would not every sheet of parchment so found, covered with writings of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, be a kind of literary treasure, and a valuable addition to our Christian literature? ' and, after some considerable travelling finds some interesting manuscripts - and after a decade further (comprising of two additional trips to that particular monastery) is presented with the complete Codex. But what difference does that make?

I was answering your remark that scholarship was only getting started in the 19th century which implied that the Codex had been available only not studied. You also said it was only unknown to scholars. I pointed out that it wasn't known to anyone, it had just been "discovered" and nobody had known about it at all, also that the fact that it was supposedly so old and yet in such good shape implies that it hadn't been used much in all those centuries, which could be attributed to its having been known to be corrupted. So you were wrong about its having been known to anyone at all. You clearly knew nothing of the history of it. You also didn't seem to know it contradicts the main body of Greek texts, kept saying "Christians" had "tinkered" with it. You just didn't know a thing about any of it. So you tell me what point you were trying to make, because whatever it was it was false. All I was doing was pointing out you were wrong about the facts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.