What can Veeky Forums tell me about the Bogomils?
What can Veeky Forums tell me about the Bogomils?
Daniel Edwards
Juan Cruz
Gnostic heretics
Grayson Nelson
The Bogomils are of much interest for me.
It is believed the Bogomils were offshoots of the Paulicians, after these were relocated to the European parts of the Byzantine Empire following the Byzantine-Paulician wars, in an attempt to strengthen the borders with the Bulgarians.
We actually don't know whether the Bogomils were an actual heretical group, or whether they were truly as prevalent/radical as the sources present: with the research being done, it is a possibility that the 'myth' of the Bogomil heretics was born due to the refusal of the Bosnian (Catholic) Church to accept a Hungarian bishop and temporal authority, as decreed by the Pope. This Bosnian Church would have been orthodox in its practices - essentially Catholic -, but its refusal to fall in line with Papal mandates meant it was marked as being "heretical".
But that's just one hypotheses: it is likely there WAS a Gnostic-inspired sect in Bosnia, along with the orthodox (Catholic) Bosnian Church, but that their radicalism and number of adherents was exaggerated.
Also, it is very likely the Bogomils influenced what would become the Cathars.
Hoped that helped.
Michael Morgan
Cathars were definitely Gnostics
Jaxson Taylor
The English word bugger, the French word bougre and the Czech word buzerant are all ultimately derived from the word "Bulgar" because it was believed the Bulgarian Bogomils fucked each other up the ass.
Anthony Young
gnostikoi as fuck
Bentley Robinson
Real Christians.
Bogomils, Paulicians and Waldensians were proto-Protestants.
The RCC heavily persecuted the true Church of Jesus Christ.
The Reformation was when the tide was turning.
Isaac Torres
Bogomils and Paulicians were Gnostic heretics, the proto-Protestants were the Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites and the followers of Savonarola
Colton Foster
I agree. Though, sadly, we probably will never know what exactly the Bogomils and Cathars - as well as a number of other "heretical" groups - believed in, due to the near-complete destruction of their books by the Church. We do have some - I believe we even have a large part of the Cathari 'Consolamentum' ritual.
As for the Bogomils, they are more obscure. One of the texts they were reputed to use was "The Fable of the Cross Tree", by a 'Pop Jeremya'. I think it's lost to us. I also seem to remember a codex or something was found in Russia (Novgorod?) that seemed to belong to a possibly heretical group directly influenced/related to or by the Bogomils.
Asher Richardson
>the proto-Protestants were the Waldensians
I think that statement is a bit off, since I thought that the Waldensians only aligned themselves with the Reformation due to the heavy persecution they faced, and by such alignment, they gradually incorporated clearly Protestant beliefs, whereas previously, they had called less for theological shifts and more for the halting of the Church's obvious corruption and excesses.
Ian Gonzalez
>T-they were gnostics!
Proof? Citation? Source?
Everything the Roman Catholic church said is to be taken with a grain of salt because they considered them enemies and it's not uncommon to lie about your enemies.
They were martyrs for Christ. The great Babylonian whore was drunk with the blood of the saints, as described in Revelation.
David Green
The Waldensians survived centuries of extreme persecution, they wouldn't be willing to give up what they felt was the gospel for an easier time. If they didn't want to be persecuted, they could have simply renounced their faith and become Catholics. The reformers also drew parallels between themselves and the Waldensians because of contact with Waldensian pastors, who they found believed the same gospel they were preaching.
Justin Murphy
Ryder White
>wickedpedia
Credibility lost.
Robert Ortiz
I'm not a Christfag, but it is very likely the Cathars and the Bogomils really were Gnostics, or, more appropriately, heavily inspired by Gnostic ideas. Like I said, we have a few surviving Cathar sources, such as their Consolamentum, which uses terminology that anyone familiar with Gnosticism would recognize.
Dominic Peterson
I suggest you watch "A Tale of Two Churches" on youtube. It traces the Reformers all the way to the New Testament church and shatters the myth that Catholicism came from Jesus as Papists claim.
Nathan Brown
Actions speak louder than words. You shall know them by their fruits.
>These supposed "Gnostics" according to Catholic sources
Died for what they believed in.
Did not harm others.
>Catholics
Murdered, tortured, burned people that disagreed with them.
Incorporated paganism into their religion.
I think those scattered groups of believers were not gnostics, they were true Christians that believed in scripture and Paul's teachings.
Austin James
Those articles have citations, brother.
Jacob Reed
There are several, but if this is some kind of Landmarkism it goes right to the trash.
Chase Wood
Cathar internal structure (the "perfect" and the "believers") was identical to manicheism, a gnostic religion,
But no typical gnostic themes (Sophia, archons, demiurge) as far as we know
Brandon Garcia
>Died for what they believed in.
So did many Arians, Muslims, Catholics etc. Martyrdom does not prove truth.
Carter Ramirez
If the Catholics were lying about them being Gnostics why didn't they lie about the Waldensians and Lollards too?
Brody Green
>they were true Christians
What, Ebionites?
The phrase 'true Christians' is extremely problematic, since the christian religion has not been 'true' to its origins since the influence of Paul of Tarsus, who was a Hellene who - in greatest likelihood - lied about his Jewish-Pharisee past.
Jonathan Stewart
youtube.com
Nice try, heretic
Zachary Sullivan
Go away, Christfag. I could tell you were some Protestant idiot from your posts.
Ryder Flores
...
Evan Thompson
>Catholics think Peter was the "final messenger"
>Protestants think Paul was the "final messenger"
If you read the Bible it seems the Protestants are right..
Peter was the apostle for the Jews, there is no proof he ever went to Rome.
Paul went all over Asia minor and into Rome, "true" Christianity are the early NT churches and elders that got instructions from Paul.
So since those times you had an unbroken chain of Pauline/scriptural Christians that lived in isolated pockets all over the place.
The Nicolaitians (proto-Catholics) became the dominant religion after Constantine converted and adopted Roman Catholicism. Tons of compromises were made as paganism crept its way inside these churches to make it more appealing to the masses. This religion would become corrupt, tyrannical and persecute the true Christians.
It's a bit more complicated but this is a short summary of it.
Ryder Bennett
>le ebin hat mene x-DDD
Christcucks had to go ruin another thread.
Brandon Peterson
Kill yourself dumb fedora cuck.
Landon Ross
>Peter was the apostle for the Jews, there is no proof he ever went to Rome.
There's "proof" for almost nothing that early in the church, however there is good evidence, such as Ignatius disciple of John writing in his epistle to the Roman church "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did"
>The Nicolaitians (proto-Catholics) became the dominant religion after Constantine converted and adopted Roman Catholicism.
WAT?! There isn't a single historical fact here. The Nicolaitians Docetists, they died out long before Constantine. Constantine did not adopt Christianity, he merely legalised it, it was adopted by Theodosius the Great. Roman Catholicism wouldn't exist for several more centuries, at the earliest beginning in 606 (and that's really streching it) when Boniface III declared himself "universal bishop".
>Tons of compromises were made as paganism crept its way inside these churches to make it more appealing to the masses.
The introduction of corruption into the church was not deliberate, it was a slow internal process.