Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Goes to the trials is an interesting term. Being one of the investigators, witnesses and alleged victims. He had at least one woman brought to his home so he could torture her there. But sure, you can just not read it and find out for yourself if you like. Well yes. He was the King. If he disapproved he could have stopped it quite easily.That he didn't is alone enough to condemn him. That he in fact believed it was the right thing to do is another nail. That some of it happened at his house under his personal direction, really drives the final nail into the coffin.Why is it happening 400 years ago (423 to be exact) of any issue? If he was mistaken - then he did not understand God's word, which I'm sure you think is clear that torture is not Christian, and yet you rely on a man who does this to innocent people? And the good Christian way of punishing is to rip their nails off, crush their feet and strangle them? But you believe that the people who were commissioned to write an edition of the Bible by him would not feel any coercion from him? Like when he told them to replace 'congregation' (ekklēsia) with 'church' (kurikon?)Again - feel free to side with a dictator.I'm sure if Obama took innocent American True Christian schoolteachers and tortured them (calling it a trial) and convicted them to die, if Obama dissolved Congress and the Senate and ruled as dictator proclaiming his divine right and asserting that all Protestants had to swear and oath of allegiance to him as head of the Church of Obama, and to appease the Mormons he releases an executive order for a new edition of the Bible to be created - you'd be totally on his side.I'm guessing you're a fan of James' son too? But I thought that he was a Good Christian? I thought Good Christians didn't torture people? I thought that was the Bad Christians? He very much did share the views of his contemporaries (many of whom were of course, Catholic) , although his 'witches' were hunted quite severely.North Berwick witch trials, circa 1590 - 100+ accused
The Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1597 - 400+ accusedOccurred under him, and his lack of repealing the Draconian law helped legitimize several other witch hunts after his death. Wrong. If only James had written on the subject, right? Oh, he did? And we've been discussing it for some time now? Well what was the manner of this attack? Let's see in the presence of James VI:

quote:

---

She confessed that she tooke a blacke Toade, and did hang the same vp by the heeles, three daies, and collected and gathered the venome as it dropped and fell from it in an Oister shell, and kept the same venome close couered, vntill she should obtaine any parte or peece of foule linnen cloth, that had appertained to the Kings Maiestie, as shirt, handkercher, napkin or any other thing which she practised to obtaine by meanes of one Iohn Kers, who being attendant in his Maiesties Chamber, desired him for olde acquaintance betweene them, to helpe her to one or a peece of such a cloth as is aforesaide, which thing the said Iohn Kers denyed to helpe her too, saying he could not help her too it.

​

And the said Agnis Tompson by her depositions since her apprehension saith, that if she had obtained any one peece of linnen cloth which the King had worne and fouled, she had bewitched him to death, and put him to such extraordinary paines, as if he had beene lying vpon sharp thornes and endes of Needles.

​

Moreouer she confessed that at the time when his Maiestie was in Denmarke, she being accompanied with the parties before specially named, tooke a Cat and christened it, and afterward bound to each parte of that Cat, the cheefest partes of a dead man, and seuerall ioynts of his bodie, and that in the night following the saide Cat was conueied into the midst of the sea by all these witches sayling in their riddles or Ciues as is aforesaide, and so left the saide Cat right before the Towne of Lieth in Scotland: this doone, there did arise such a tempest in the Sea, as a greater hath not beene seene: which tempest was the cause of the perrishing of a Boate or vessell comming ouer from the towne of Brunt Iland to the towne of Lieth, wherein was sundrye Iewelles and riche giftes, which should haue been presented to the now Queen of Scotland, at her Maiesties comming to Lieth.

​

Againe it is confessed, that the said christened Cat was the cause that the Kinges Maiesties Ship at his comming foorth of Denmarke, had a contrary winde to the rest of his Ships, then being in his companye, which thing was most strange and true, as the Kings Maiestie acknowledgeth, for when the rest of the Shippes had a faire and good winde, then was the winde contrarye and altogither against his Maiestie: and further the saide witche declared, that his Maiestie had neuer come safelye from the Sea, if his faith had not preuailed aboue their ententions.

​

Moreouer the said Witches being demaunded how the Diuell would vse them when he was in their company, they confessed that when the Diuell did receiue them for his seruants, and that they had vowed themselues vnto him, then he would Carnallye vse them, albeit to their little pleasure, in respect of his colde nature: and would doo the like at sundry other times.

---

quote:

---

Item, he confessed that by his witchcrafte he did bewitch a Gentleman dwelling neere to the Saltpans, where the said Doctor kept Schoole, onely for being enamoured of a Gentlewoman whome he loued himselfe: by meanes of which his Sorcerye, witchcraft and diuelish practises, he caused the said Gentleman that once in xxiiij. howres he fell into a lunacie and madnes, and so continued one whole hower together, and for the veritie of the same, he caused the Gentleman to be brought before the Kinges Maiestie, which was vpon the xxiiij. day of December last, and being in his Maiesties Chamber, suddenly he gaue a great scritch and fell into a madnes, sometime bending himselfe, and sometime capring so directly vp, that his head did touch the seeling of the Chamber, to the great admiration of his Maiestie and others then present: so that all the Gentlemen in the Chamber were not able to holde him, vntill they called in more helpe, who together bound him hand and foot: and suffering the said gentleman to lye still vntill his furye were past, he within an hower came againe to himselfe, when being demaunded of the Kings Maiestie what he saw or did all that while, answered that he had been in a sound sleepe.

​

Item the said Doctor did also confesse that he had vsed means sundry times to obtain his purpose and wicked intent of the same Gentlewoman, and seeing himselfe disapointed of his intention, he determined by all waies he might to obtaine the same, trusting by coniuring, witchcraft and Sorcery to obtaine it in this manner.

​

It happened this gentlewoman being vnmaried, had a brother who went to schoole with the said Doctor, and calling his Scholler to him, demaunded if he did lye with his sister, who answered he did, by meanes wherof he thought to obtaine his purpose, and therefore secretlye promised to teach him without stripes, so he would obtain for him three haires of his sisters priuities, at such time as he should spye best occasion for it: which the youth promised faithfullye to perfourme, and vowed speedily to put it in practise, taking a peece of coniured paper of his maister to lappe them in when he had gotten them: and therevpon the boye practised nightlye to obtaine his maisters purpose, especially when his sister was a sleepe.

​

But God who knoweth the secrets of all harts, and reuealeth all wicked and vngodlye practises, would not suffer the intents of this diuilish Doctor to come to that purpose which he supposed it would, and therefore to declare that he was heauilye offended with his wicked entent, did so woorke by the Gentlewomans owne meanes, that in the ende the same was discouered and brought to light: for she being one night a sleepe, and her brother in bed with her, suddenlye cryed out to her mother, declaring that her Brother would not suffer her to sleepe, wherevpon her mother hauing a quick capacitie, did vehemently suspect Doctor Fians entention, by reason she was a witche of her selfe, and therefore presently arose, and was very inquisitiue of the boy to vnderstand his intent, and the better to know the same, did beat him with sundry stripes, wherby he discouered the trueth vnto her.

​

The Mother therefore being well practised in witchcrafte, did thinke it most conuenient to meete with the Doctor in his owne Arte, and therevpon tooke the paper from the boy, wherein hee should haue put the same haires, and went to a young Heyfer which neuer had borne Calfe nor gone to the Bull, and with a paire of sheeres, clipped off three haires from the vdder of the Cow, and wrapt them in the same paper, which she againe deliuered to the boy, then willing him to giue the same to his saide Maister, which he immediatly did.

​

The Schoolemaister so soone as he had receiued them, thinking them indeede to bee the Maides haires, went straight and wrought his arte vpon them: But the Doctor had no sooner doone his intent to them, but presentlye the Hayfer or Cow whose haires they were indeed, came vnto the doore of the Church wherein the Schoolemaister was, into the which the Hayfer went, and made towards the Schoolemaister, leaping and dauncing vpon him, and following him foorth of the church and to what place so euer he went, to the great admiration of all the townes men of Saltpans, and many other who did beholde the same.

​

The reporte whereof made all men imagine that hee did woorke it by the Diuell, without whom it could neuer haue beene so sufficientlye effected: and thervpon, the name of the said Doctor Fian (who was but a very yong man) began to grow so common among the people of Scotland, that he was secretlye nominated for a notable Cuniurer.

​

All which although in the beginning he denied, and would not confesse, yet hauing felt the pain of the bootes (and the charme stinted, as aforesayd) he confessed all the aforesaid to be most true, without producing anie witnesses to iustifie the same, & thervpon before the kings maiesty he subscribed the sayd confessions with his owne hande, which for truth remaineth vpon record in Scotland.

---

After the confession, the devil visits him, but he renounces him. But then strangely denies everything and

quote:

---

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.

---

Yep, one of his boats sank, and not being able to explain it, he tortured around a 100 people and 'found out' that through the use of some clothes, a toad, an oyster, bits of udder hair from a calf and a baptised cat - an assortment of Scottish people magicked his boat into sinking. Happy now? So was Jesus. I haven't celebrated it since I became an adult, finding the burning of effigies of Catholics, even murderous ones, distasteful.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Available? No, I said it was unknown to scholars, actually I said 'It wasn't known to scholars. '. I have no idea who, over the millennia did know about it. And you didn't provide evidence. Please tell me how you know that no human being in 1200 years was aware of its existence? Not being known to 19th Century scholars is not the same as nobody having known about it. Some of it was in good shape. Other bits were heavily damaged.The Codex Vaticanus is in pretty good shape too. Codexes of that type were priceless - and were too unwieldy for day to day use. How could that be known, if as you assert, nobody knew about it? I didn't say that. There really isn't a lot of history of it - which is your entire argument isn't it? I've merely read the English translation of Tischendorf's own account, which is largely all the primary historical evidence we have for it prior to it becoming 'public' knowledge. I also read some secondary sources, and some tertiary ones including websites that were ugly as hell and written by people of a similar mindset to you.Here's your knowledge of the history of it:

quote:

---

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.

---

Here is mine:

quote:

---

Well not quite. The Codex is huge. He actually described what he thought to be a little over 120 sheets.
...
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.

---

Which of us is exhibiting a better knowledge of the history of the codex? What gave you the impression that I thought it agreed with anything? Yes, that is the most likely hypothesis. Do you have a better one? You haven't told me anything I didn't already know. When I entered into a discussion on the subject - I read about it first. I'm like that. Many of my posts have several hours of reading behind them. I don't debate you to convince you, I have long considered that a Sisyphus like torment. I do it because it motivates me to read and I end up reading a lot of interesting stuff. Over time, scribes, theologians and other educated people involved in the preservation of Scripture introduced errors and outright falsehoods over time. Thus the older the manuscript the more likely it is to have been 'tinkered' with less. You keep failing, I'm afraid. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Just endlessly evasive aren't you. I get so tired of the EvC runaround. Maybe I'll come back to your codex song and dance, the slippery sidestep, maybe not.As for King James I need to read the book on demonology. There is no doubt he's been viciously slandered but I hadn't run across anything about that book so I need to catch up on that. Offhand I find it hard to condemn a man who otherwise lived a very good life and was the target of slander by unscrupulous enemies, just because of his fear of witches that led him to horrible measures against them. Elizabeth 1 also prosecuted witches, it's not like he was alone. Of course it must be denounced but you leave no room for complexities in a life lived in such a different time. And like everybody else at EvC you set yourself up as his judge as if you yourself are just SO superior. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What if the man had been Catholic. Would that make it a bit easier to condemn him?

Not if he'd lived the same otherwise blameless life.

The thing is Faith, that paleography isn't merely 'subjective assessments'. There really were distinct styles considered 'correct form' in different centuries. For someone to invest in creating such a manuscript, they would certainly want it to be in the form believed most optimal for reading/aesthetics or whatever.You know all those corrections you asserted? You know that those corrections were principally detected by assessing the style of the writing? And they seem to be primarily 4th-7th Century.Furthermore, inclusion of certain texts and references in the margin help date it further. Which manuscripts did they use? Corrections are common. Yes, well I often trust the word of fraudsters. Especially fraudsters with a career of having his forgeries detected quickly. Especially when one of the people that exposed his forgeries was Tischendorf. Yeah, he hand wrote the entire Codex by copying a text that he never produced for someone who never acknowledged this witnessed by some unnamed people and a Greek guy who only ever appeared in letters and was so supportive of Simonides that he kind of sounded like a sock puppet, and instead of giving it to the patron in Russia, he gave it to some monks. Nor did they make much of an appearance. Who were they? You realize he was a professional con-man right? I'll grant he had skill, but not enough of it. By 'original' do you mean, a 14th Century manuscript found in Greece? Is that the one he stole several sheets of? I'm not sure why the Textus Receptus is relevant. That's a 16th Century printed collection of Greek texts. Why is it unusual for a 4th Century manuscript found in Sinai to be in the Alexandrian style? Yes, why would a forger bother to replicate 8 centuries worth of styles in his corrections if he intended to give it to an illustrious and powerful person as a gift?

What did I evade? Yes, might be an idea to read the thing you are talking about. Well, let's be clear. His fear of witches - and the instruction to kill them from the Bible, motivated him to torture and kill dozens of innocent people.I'm not sure Jesus said anything about that Jesus: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. James Smash her kneecaps! JesusAssuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me James Burn the witch! (She turned me into a newt!) Jesus For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. James Crush his feet!I see James was after all, a Good Christian. Just a frightened Good Christian. Yes, but her mother was accused of being a witch, and executed - and probably as a result she was far less extreme than James. Torture was not standard practice, and it may even have been forbidden by her in the case of witches. Of course I do. Remember this?

quote:

---

They attacked and murdered Waldensians, for instance, a group of Bible believers who had escaped to remote areas in the Alps to avoid the Roman Church but were hunted down and killed from time to time -- on the accusation of "heresy."

---

Wasn't the Duke of Savoy a man of his times? Should we not make allowances for him for doing as the Romans did, so to speak? I'm pretty much using your judgements against him. But sure - if you want to retreat to moral relativity that's fine - nice you came over to the dark side at last.

In what sense is James a good Christian? Yes I did read the sarcasm, but I still want to talk about relativism. Even the most extreme relativism does not provide a standard for a Christian to recognize James as a Good Christian.Presumably, the New Testament is supposed to inspire Christians to some approximation of Christ-like behavior. And surely it has done exactly that for some people. So why is it that 15 centuries after Jesus Christ's ministry, and nearly the same amount of time after Paul provided the example of what it means for us ordinary mortals to follow Jesus, are we still supposed to be making excuses for torture and murder by Christians and maintaining that we have to judge them by the worldly standard of their times.No need for relativism. People did horrible things based on Bible inspired beliefs. It does not make those inspired beliefs Christian. No reason to excuse what King James did in order to defend the Bible. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Someone is accused of a terrible crime. Crimes of this nature, if seen to go unpunished, could lead to anarchy, revolt, civil war (and maybe the wrath of God). Is it better to punish some innocents so that the perception of justice can be preserved in a time when justice was impossible to achieve? Yes. But, as with all governments - the Bible was as often as not used as justifications for the things they intended to do for other reasons.

quote:

---

For rulers are not a terror to good works... But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

---

Romans 13 is Christian, right? It's not about defending the Bible - but about defending the Bible King James commissioned. Faith has to choose between condemning James based on her sense of absolute morality, or retreating to moral relativity to try to excuse his behaviour.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You could read the blog post I linked to.

Really? A blog post? Okay, that answers the question of where you got your impression. But that's not a sufficient reference for me. After all, we can read about how stupid biologists and geologist are on your blog, but we don't just take your word for it.We know plenty of stuff about King James. And you yourself have acknowledged his nonsense about the divine rights of kings, which opens up another can of stuff to put on the man including attempting to bury the Geneva Bible.Do you know whose persecution the Puritans were fleeing when they came to America in the middle 1500s? That of the self same King James who hadn't yet arrived at the more admirable position of hating and persecuting Catholics.This bit of revisionism of yours has eroded what must be close to the last of your credibility. You aren't even close to the truth.

So here's the blog post I did on this subject a while back, featuring a talk by a pastor who had done some research into King James I, as well as the transcript of the talk.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.And here is a site where all James' writings can be read: King James I of England (VI of Scotland) Page ABE: At that site you can read about the history of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings for which James is so frequently vilified. It explains: And here's that site Mod posted of the book on Demonology he wrote:Books: daemonologie (sorted by popularity) - Project GutenbergYes James I and his predecessor Elizabeth I did chase the Dissenters to the Anglican Church out of England. A sad chapter in history but it doesn't mean they weren't good Christians themselves, which they were, and it doesn't justify heaping slander on the man in any case. We have, after all, made peace with the Anglicans since then. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Typical Faith. You will tirelessly endorse anyone that affirms your worldview.Who is Stephen Coston? What is his training in history? What are his sources? The publisher has only published books by him, so I assume that they are selfpublished. The publisher name is Konigswort, which I think translated to kings word. It is also the german name for a town in the Czech republic.I have no reason to believe anything this guy writes. Every website that has information about him or his books are very biased.This all I can find on Mr. Coston.

quote:

---

Stephen A. Coston SR., a former member of the United States Army Presidential Escort Unit, The Old Guard, in Washington, D.C., continues in active federal service in the civilian sector in St. Petersburg, Florida. He will be published in the 1997 anthology (with biographical sketch) of The Nightfall Of Diamonds. Mr. Coston will also be published in the 1997 anthology edition of Best Poems Of 1997 (again with biographical sketch). He has been inducted into The International Poetry Hall Of Fame, as well as a semi-finalist in the North American Open Poetry Contest. Mr. Coston is also pre- certified for membership as a Distinguished Member of the International Poetry Society, and recently was awarded the Editor's Choice Award by The National Library Of Poetry for outstanding achievement in poetry. He is a graduate of St. Petersburg Junior College, a life member of the Trinitarian Bible Society, a member of the Society Of King Charles The Martyr, The Royal Martyr Church Union, and the Noncommissioned Officers Association. Mr. Coston's other literary endeavors include treatises ranging from Biblical literature to philosophy, from comparative religious systems to military history and textual manuscript theory. He has contributed articles and letters to various Journals and Newspapers. Born in St. Petersburg Florida, he continues to live there with his wife, Leigh, and his son, Stephen JR., in their home of 20 years.

---

AmazonYou might want to look into the society's he belongs to. They seem to be quite non-Faith approved "christian" groups. They don't worship Mary they worship Charles I.

I judge a book by its credibility and its sources, not by whatever you can find to say against its author, especially his associations which may or may not say anything about him.. I accept even some writings by Catholics, imagine that. He seems to have done careful research on King James. Judge his research, not the man.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you have the book? Have you read it? What makes it credible? Please tell me some of these sources.This http://www.biblebelievers.com/Coston1.html is just assertion after assertion with no substance.

quote:

---

Thankfully, modern secular critical opinion on King James VI & I is reevaluating the negative assertions of his moral character and moderate critics of King James VI & I are now admitting that these charges are basically OPINION not historical facts! As noted above, only a few extremist and militant and the most ardent of King James VI &I's critics are espousing some of the most vociferous and invectively rancorous libels of King James VI & I.

---

But he provides nothing to support this statement. It is meaningless. Coston is not a Historian. He is an apologist and propagandist.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.