It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gnostic suppression

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
You know, it seems to me that Gnosticism was and is a form of Christianity that is in many ways superior to Christian orthidoxy, for instance:

Morals were a matter of personal responsibility, rather than rules set in stone.
Gnosticism placed women on an even footing with men (gospel of St. Mary Magdeline etc.)
Meditation and reflection rather than prayer.
Non compulsion, if you didn't want to be Gnostic they couldn't force you.

And those are just some of the things that, in my mind at least, make Gnosticism a much more tolerant and peaceful than the Catholic, Protestant or Orthidox churches.

So, what are your opinions on Gnosticism, do you think Gnosticism is good or bad? Do you think it was a shame it was suppressed or don't you? I'm just curious about what people think about it.




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Yea man, burning people at the stake and rack tortues can't be Christian. In all the extraBiblical scriptures I've been able to read, I find NOTHING that warrants what happened with the extermination of the Bogomil and Cathar religions that also claimed to be Christians. A New Testament work named "Christ and Satan" was widespread before the Inquisition. (Junius II and MS Junius, the Heliand, Cathars had it, but though I can't prove Bogomils had it, they had alot in common with the Cathars of the so-called "dualist heresy" (that's also in 1 Timothy 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:5).

If anything atrocious is in those books, please show me. But don't expect me to join in any Inquisition.

If you haven't already, see the disputed thread about the Inquisition.

The official Inquisition length is debatable, if you consider that heretics were put to death until 1917 in Russia, though it was officially over in Rome. The 325AD Nicean Creed set the definition of heresy used in 385AD on bishop Pricillian and congregation in Spain. Rulers did the bidding before the official Inquisition.

The 1991 book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" by Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh/ Summit Books, identifies Ratzinger as the "Inquisition" head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", with-holding scrolls from the public.

The book was intended to carry on the fight against Ratzinger (the pope).

The Book of Jasher is quoted twice in the Old Testament, but not included now. Is it a heretic book then? I think not!

Neither do I condemn the extra Biblical books as a whole. Show me the heresy!

(I'm talking to all, not the author here). Thanks for the thread. Expect flak from the defenders of "spiritual wickedness in high places"-Ephesians 6:12. Matthew 5:11, Luke 12:2-7.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say Gnosticism is superior to Christianity, it's a bit too different, that sort of makes the issue apples and oranges. Is an orange better than an apple? Not inherently, no. It's a subjective issue, to be decided by the individual.

Gnosticism is amazingly progressive though, and I think that bears mentioning. Strange to think that it survived and spread for as long as it did, and it's equally suprising that it has now sprung up in myriad forms. Many of the spiritual, non-denominational, personal Christian adaptations gaining popularity in America are closer to Gnosticism than Christianity. At the very least, modern 'progressive' religions borrow quite heavily from the Pre-Christian and early Christian philosophers, who were not strictly Christian.

The heavy Eastern influence on Gnosticism also makes it more adaptable as a world religion. It's quite malleable to personal needs, which makes it a far sight easier to promulgate compared to the stiffness inherent in, say, 7DA or Catholicism.

I think it's safe to say that Gnosticism has proven its staying power, and should be around for a long time to come.

There were, of course, some rather extreme believers, extremist even. Sometimes the Gnostics get a bad name for deeds and philosophies that were considered 'fringe' at the time, but in the late Roman era became synonymous with public perception of the faith. A few bad apples and all that..

I think it's also safe to say that nobody is ever injured by meditation and contemplation. Critical thinking, philosophy, is a sorely missed trait in today's world. I don't suppose the mob was ever anything but fickle, but now that the mob is so huge, their whims are that much more dangerous.

A little intelligence, and a lot of thinking, go a long way to fixing an individual's problems, and by proxy, the problems of the world. If every individual just tidied up their own house, got their affairs in order, the world would instantly be free of conflict, like a traffic jam transformed in an instant by a shared decision on the part of the motorists to accelarate to 65mph and cruise.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Thats exactly what I'm talking about, Gnosticism praised self reflection and the pursuit of knowledge while Catholacism and the like demands unconditional faith and almost supresses new ideas. And Gnosticism, as you said, is far more appealing to a larger scope of people thanks to its far more tolerant teachings and its flexibility moral-wise.

Personally, I won't be happy until I see Gnostic temples being erected next to Catholic and Protestant cathedrals, but hey, thats just me



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mabus the Forsaken
You know, it seems to me that Gnosticism was and is a form of Christianity that is in many ways superior to Christian orthidoxy, for instance:

Morals were a matter of personal responsibility, rather than rules set in stone.

??? Where does it say this??? Gnostic christianity is supposed to come from the word for knowledge, and also is thought sometimes to have links to pre-christian gnostics, but I don't recall them specifically being moral relativists or anything like that.


Gnosticism placed women on an even footing with men (gospel of St. Mary Magdeline etc.)

I think only a small number of christian groups ever paid this gospel any attention, and I don't recall that gnostic christians being especially favourable to women, perhaps not as restrictive as mainline christianity, but still not really accepting. This idea seems to mainly be from the recent idea that the gnostics are the people that were teh good guys in teh davinci code, which simply isn't true.


Meditation and reflection rather than prayer.

What is a prayer but meditation? Gnostics applied philosophical thinking to theology. I don't see why this is especially unique or relevatory.

Non compulsion, if you didn't want to be Gnostic they couldn't force you.

THe early christians were the same way. Power tends to corrupt. I don't see why it wouldn't've corrupted the different lines of gnostic/heretical christianity.

So, what are your opinions on Gnosticism, do you think Gnosticism is good or bad?
I think that the word gnosticism is too broad to apply to anything in any meaningful way. There were gnostic religions before christianity, there were gnostics like the cathars, there were other gnostic groups of christians, etc. Even the unitarians might be thought of as a sort of gnostic group, or the socinians, in a way.


Do you think it was a shame it was suppressed or don't you?

It'd be interesting to see how history and religion would've played out if any of the various gnostic groups that popped up over time had won out, sure, diversity is neato. I suspect europe would be more like the middle east, where there are lots of islamic sects, jewish sects, christians, so called druze, zoroasterians, etc etc.


Gnosticism praised self reflection and the pursuit of knowledge while Catholacism and the like demands unconditional faith and almost supresses new ideas.

Where do the gnostics say this? And why would catholicism, as a theology, accept 'new' ideas? Why is the absolute (the metaphysical-supreme-godly-deity) going to be so changeable? Christianity is a revealed religion, unlike say the mystery cults of the pagan world, wherein the lower level members simply didn't know what the religion was really about. Gnosticism seems like a system that would re-inforce that kind of thing. Because mainline/orthodox christianity is a revealed religion, why should it change?

I won't be happy until I see Gnostic temples being erected next to Catholic and Protestant cathedral

Why? Whats that got to do with it? You just went on praising the non-worldlieness of 'gnosticism', and now are overly concerned about temples. Why?

And Gnosticism, as you said, is far more appealing to a larger scope of people thanks to its far more tolerant teachings and its flexibility moral-wise.

? Roman Catholicism is the largest christian denomination in the world. There are currently no gnostic groups, not 'real' gnostics anyway, and yet the gnostic gospels are widely available. People prefer orthodox christianity, because they have faith in it, just like the early christian community rejected the gnostics an accepted the orthodox interpretation, because of their faith.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Well I must say, you do put up a good argument, I guess I'm just a bit curious as to how things would have turned out if Gnosticism (and by this I do mean Christian Gnosticism) had been a major religion.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
It certainly is an interesting subject.

Here is the
Nag Hammadi Library online.
This is a link to some of the Gnostic Scriptures and other Fragments.
Whereas this page might be helpful in distinguishing between christian and Mandaean gnostics.

Though I don't want to give the impression that I am all that familiar with all of this.
Here is also a standard catholic reference on gnosticism that provides a detailed explanation of some of the sects that the church encountered. That source should provide a lot of other terms to research and check up on.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mabus the Forsaken
Well I must say, you do put up a good argument, I guess I'm just a bit curious as to how things would have turned out if Gnosticism (and by this I do mean Christian Gnosticism) had been a major religion.

Though I have a good collection of extra Biblical scriptures, I still don't know exactly what Gnosticism is, until I can read the supposed heresy in the lost books of the Bogomils, etc. What we can read isn't the cause of the extermination of religions, surely. Second hand characterizations of Cathar & Bogomil beliefs isn't seeing what those alleged beliefs were based on.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Let's post in the right forum. No conspiracy here.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
??? Where does it say this??? Gnostic christianity is supposed to come from the word for knowledge, and also is thought sometimes to have links to pre-christian gnostics, but I don't recall them specifically being moral relativists or anything like that.


Modern Gnosticism is very close to Pre-Christian Gnosticism. Most info you will find on the internet regarding Gnostics is false, and based on symbolic teachings used to convey the truth in times when they were being persecuted. These groups were around circa 1700 years ago. I don't think you'll recall anything about them.


Originally posted by Nygdan
What is a prayer but meditation? Gnostics applied philosophical thinking to theology. I don't see why this is especially unique or relevatory.


Meditation requieres no thought, prayer does.

---------------------


I won't be happy until I see Gnostic temples being erected next to Catholic and Protestant cathedral


Putting up Gnostic temples would be greatly counterproductive. What purpose would it serve?

[edit on 22/9/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Most info you will find on the internet regarding Gnostics is false

Gnostics don't publish to the internet?? What sources for gnosticism are you using??


Meditation requieres no thought, prayer does.

Do not people meditate upon certain things?? I know that there is are some zen like meditations that try to get ride of all thought and sensation, but thats not the only kind of meditation that is out there, and even then its an attempt to commune with the divine.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Gnostics don't publish to the internet?? What sources for gnosticism are you using??


You will find plenty of information about modern. Unfortunately information about Gnosticism around 300 AD is based on several symbolic teachings, and word of mouth that can be easily misinterpreted. You will certainly not find much information about their values, message, and vision.



Do not people meditate upon certain things?? I know that there is are some zen like meditations that try to get ride of all thought and sensation, but thats not the only kind of meditation that is out there, and even then its an attempt to commune with the divine.


The word "meditation" is subjective, and can have different meanings depending on the interpreter. To me it is to be void of thought, and is very different from prayer.

[edit on 23/9/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
Though I have a good collection of extra Biblical scriptures, I still don't know exactly what Gnosticism is, until I can read the supposed heresy in the lost books of the Bogomils, etc.


It is a mistake to use the term 'gnostic' to refer to these medieval groups, and a common one, unfortunately. It causes substantial confusion. These groups are sub-Manichaean, if I understand correctly; they have no connection with gnosticism.

'Gnosis' is a Greek noun meaning 'knowledge.' The gnostics are a collection of mutually contradictory groups originating with Basilides ca. 130, and enjoying their heyday up to the end of the second century. Thereafter they were in decline, but Valentinian groups still existed in the Nile Delta in the 4th century, and Marcionites in 550AD.

These groups held wildly differing mythologies, but the term for all is used by the fathers. In general they believed that matter was evil; that the creator likewise; and that a previously unknown good god was the father of Christ. This involved the idea of dualism -- an evil and a good principle coexisting for eternity, and here it links to Persian ideas which were to reappear in Manichaeism in the 3rd century.

Because matter was evil, this Christ was not quite human as you or I, but a phantasm who could not really suffer. The gnostic believer could be saved from this evil world by virtue of his secret knowledge (gnosis) about the universe.

The variations on this theme got pretty extreme. On the one hand you had some gnostic groups (e.g. Borborians) who demanded fornication of all their initiates (St. Epiphanius as a young man had a run-in with some of these who tried to seduce him); on the other Marcion and his sect condemned all marriage and reproduction as evil. The ideas taught by each group tended to vary over time, and be dependent or related to the ideas being floated in pagan philosophical schools at the time.

Many of these groups produced fake gospels written in the name of some obscure apostle or other and filled with their own ideas. But they did not treat these as scripture -- the coptic version of the 'Gospel of Thomas', for instance, has been edited to produce considerable doctrinal variation from the Greek fragments (far more than any biblical variant). They did tend to use them to try to win converts from among Christians (Eusebius records such an attempt using the docetic 'Gospel of Peter' in the church at Rhossus).

Fundamentally they were an outgrowth of paganism, which had stirred some Christian terminology and ideas into the mix. They ceased to appeal as times grew harder in the Roman world.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
How one defines Gnostic varies. I've a limited number of scriptures considered Gnostic, a small percentage of the extraBiblical writings.

I've heard what the exterminated religions believed, but I'm still waiting to see the scriptures their alleged beliefs were based on. It ain't in the Apocrypha, or Psuedopigrapha, or Dead Sea scrolls, or Nag Hammadi, or Kabbalah. Know where I can buy a copy of the ancient Book of Zerubabel? Zerubabel was an Old Testament figure, but he's excluded from the Psuedopigrapha, besides the Bible.

Rumors on the net say it's like Revelations, but I can't confirm it. The only sites I found supposedly have it, aren't accessable to this webtv rig. Sitting on bookstore shelves is what I consider availably extant.

I've still never found the writings that supported the alleged Gnostic beliefs entirely. The Heliand is only available in ancient Saxon language. The NT section is titled Christ and Satan, as with the Junius II, and I believe the Cathars also used that book still not in my collection of extant extrabiblical writings.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
I've still never found the writings that supported the alleged Gnostic beliefs entirely. The Heliand is only available in ancient Saxon language. The NT section is titled Christ and Satan, as with the Junius II, and I believe the Cathars also used that book still not in my collection of extant extrabiblical writings.


This is because there are no alleged Gnostic beliefs. It is not a doctrine. The duality of Manichaeanism is not present in Modern Gnosticism, nor do I believe was it present in the Valentinian era.

Gnosis is based on experience, that is the only way one can obtain knowledge, all else is beliefs. Modern Gnosticism, thought to be founded by VM Samael Aun Woer, is written much more literally than his Valentinian counterparts. You might have a look at some of his books, for Gnostic beliefs.

[edit on 23/9/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

[quote/]
"This is because there are no alleged Gnostic beliefs. It is not a doctrine. The duality of Manichaeanism is not present in Modern Gnosticism, nor do I believe was it present in the Valentinian era.
You might have a look at some of his books, for Gnostic beliefs" [ /quote] by AkashicWanderer]


You talk to me like I'm ignorant about this. I've "The Other Bible" by Harper Collins Books, which has the Vaelntinian & Manichean stuff, & I don't see any origin of the dualist belief or That Christ was a ghost, as was stated prior.

The very books missing ARE the source, that I cannot discern for myself. That's some kind of suppression, if not Gnostic. I also have "The Gnostic Scriptures"-Bentley Layton with Doubleday Books, where I don't find basis for such beliefs.

I don't want to take a researchers' word for their beliefs, because the Bogomils & Catars were exterminated, & Church spread rumors untrue about Bogomils, about sacrifices, unfounded by any extrabiblical writings. Extermination is suppression at its' worst.

A list of books I'd like to find in a bookstore of the Bogomils; Vision of Isaiah, Oration on the Cross, and Two Outlaws by Saint Gregory, Lament of Fallen Angels, Secret Book of the Bogomils, On Adam & Eve and the End of the World, Legend of the Cross. Are they not suppressed?



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
You talk to me like I'm ignorant about this. I've "The Other Bible" by Harper Collins Books, which has the Vaelntinian & Manichean stuff, & I don't see any origin of the dualist belief or That Christ was a ghost, as was stated prior.

The very books missing ARE the source, that I cannot discern for myself. That's some kind of suppression, if not Gnostic. I also have "The Gnostic Scriptures"-Bentley Layton with Doubleday Books, where I don't find basis for such beliefs.

I don't want to take a researchers' word for their beliefs, because the Bogomils & Catars were exterminated, & Church spread rumors untrue about Bogomils, about sacrifices, unfounded by any extrabiblical writings. Extermination is suppression at its' worst.

A list of books I'd like to find in a bookstore of the Bogomils; Vision of Isaiah, Oration on the Cross, and Two Outlaws by Saint Gregory, Lament of Fallen Angels, Secret Book of the Bogomils, On Adam & Eve and the End of the World, Legend of the Cross. Are they not suppressed?


Great! Do not believe what theoligans say about Gnostic beliefs, it is not based on concrete proof. You will most likely find true Gnostic beliefs in some Modern Gnosticism. However the answer is never external, it is within.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Don't take me personal. I come as a friend to interject a different type of extrabiblical suppression here that is worth noticing, to understand what's really going on.

The book; "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" by baigent & Leigh/Summit Books was 1991. It cites Ratzinger (now pope), as the head of the "Inquisition" with-holding scrolls from scrutiny, with the Vatican Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith organization.

The general public tends to be mind controlled into thinking anything not in the Bible is heresy from Satan and gnostic.

The book of Jasher is quoted twice in the Old Testament, but not included, so it's not false, though key info was subtracted from what the public gets to read of it in recent times.

Zerubabel was in the Old Testament, but not his book, which was excluded also from the jewish Psuedopigrapha. Rumor has it that it's like Revelations, but I haven't been able to read it yet.

Eusebius documented jews subtracting things from scripture in 325AD.

Pistis Sophia is gnostic, wouldn't you say? But not officially called so.

This kind of topic gets a lot of flak, like on my Inquisition thread. Flak is heaviest right on target.

Go to the research page at www.truthquestonline.info... to see a copy of the Jesuit oath to murder for the Church. Father Malachi Martin exposed a secret masonic Order within the Jesuit ranks in his book The Keys of His Blood-page 472.

Another suppression; 900,000 Protestant Reformationists killed in the post Dominican, Jesuit Inquisition. Taint right!



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
I've "The Other Bible" by Harper Collins Books, which has the Vaelntinian & Manichean stuff, & I don't see any origin of the dualist belief or That Christ was a ghost, as was stated prior.


Read Tertullian, De carne Christi, Adversus Valentinianos, and Adversus Marcionem. Val. is online in Riley's splendid translation; Marc. and Carn. in Evans. There are also older Ante-Nicene Fathers translations, of course.



I don't want to take a researchers' word for their beliefs, because the Bogomils & Catars were exterminated, & Church spread rumors untrue about Bogomils, about sacrifices, unfounded by any extrabiblical writings.


Your choices would seem to be either to read up the literary evidence from antiquity -- much of it patristic, but including survivals in Coptic -- or rely on modern imagination. You'll excuse me if I leave that choice to you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
You will certainly not find much information about their values, message, and vision.


interestingly:

www.newadvent.org...
great, if not the greatest, part of Gnostic literature, which has been saved from the general wreck of Gnostic writings, is preserved to us in three Coptic codices, commonly called the Askew, the Bruce, and the Akhmim Codex. The Askew Codex, of the fifth of sixth century, contains the lengthy treatise "Pistis Sophia", i.e. Faith-Wisdom. This is a work in four books, written between A.D. 250 and 300; the fourth book, however, is an adaptation of an earlier work. The first two books describe the fall of the Æon Sophia and her salvation by the Æon Soter; the last two books describe the origin of sin and evil and the need of Gnostic repentance.

I suppose that we could say that the text are indecipherable to moderns tho, infact I would tend to agree that almost anything from such a distant and alien context is going to be ultimately pretty unknowable.

To me it is to be void of thought, and is very different from prayer

Fair enough



Know where I can buy a copy of the ancient Book of Zerubabel?

No, but interstingly tho somewhat of a digression:
Haggai and Zerubabel: Was Zerubabel Zoroaster?

The final four verses (Hag 2:20-23) eulogize Zerubabel as the universal eschatological ruler. Yehouah will overthrow the “throne of kingdoms”, the chariot and its riders and the strength of the nations. It sounds like a call to rebellion, but Zerubabel might mean Zoroaster. Is there here Zoroastrian mythology about the eschaton misunderstood and written into history? Have we an edited version of what was originally the expression of the Saoshyant, a descendent of Zoroaster, appearing when God shook the earth at the End Time?

Tho why is this rejected as the book:
Book of Zerubbabel (Ezra 1-6)
or also here??


Sitting on bookstore shelves is what I consider availably extant.

Thats a rather poor consideration no? Most books aren't available by that reasoning. I mean, wouldn't it at least be best to consider it what you can get thru the Interlibrary Loan System??

I've still never found the writings that supported the alleged Gnostic beliefs entirely

Then perhaps its better to say that there isn't much evidence for hard gnosticism no??


A list of books I'd like to find in a bookstore of the Bogomils; Vision of Isaiah

Why is it that this guy can find the copies of this work, but you are not able to?? I mean, really, why should these documents be at barnes and noble?????

citeEqually rare in world literature is the following account of Isaiah's visit to heaven, a Russian Slavonic copy of a late tenth or eleventh-century Old Bulgarian translation from Greek. Since only a fragment of the Greek original is extant, the Slavonic is all the more precious. There also remain a longer, Ethiopian version, as well as a Latin rendition which is closely tied to the Slavonic (more on this below).


Are they not suppressed?

If you consider not being on teh best seller list to be a suppression or not being in stock at borders to be suppression, then sure, they're suppressed.

Go to the research page at www.truthquestonline.info... to see a copy of the Jesuit oath to murder for the Church

Like so many of your citations, there is no such information there. at the very least, I searched for merely 'jesuit', and turn up nothing. Where is the sense in presenting a link if it doesn't have the information on it??


Actually, I just found it, by randomly browsing. Its gotten to by clicking a link called 'the missing 13th ammendment" and then selecting the oath link and its url is
www.ianpaisley.org...

Please note that this isn't even in the same domain as your link, and the page has nothing to do with the 'truth quest' pages.

It cite as amoung its sources:

Anon.: The Female Jesuit. London, 1851

Anon.: The Mystery of Jesuitism. London, 1658

Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824

Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824

Why should any of this be beleived??? An anonymous publication amoung the english, who had engaged in brutal suppression of catholics after going protestant??? Other sites list that the

oath is taken from the book Subterranean Rome by Carlos Didier, translated from the French and published in New York in 1843

And both are really based upon a supposed ex-jesuit, alberto rivera, confirming these oathes, and the source for that is a jack chick tract. Chick 'knows' that rivera is telling the truth 'because he prayed about it'. No possiblity for wishful thinking and self-deception there eh?

But rivera apparently is a complete fraud. There is no evidence that he was a preist, let alone a jesuit, let alone a very high ranking jesuit who was invovled in this ritual. Indeed, the man has an extensive history of fraud. There is no reason to accept his confirmation as real, and there is no reason to accept this suposed oath as anything other than protestant anti-catholic propaganda.

Also, here is an intersting explanation of how the stuff ends up in the congressional record.

In the 1912 elections, the two candidates for Congress from the Seventh Congressional District in Pennsylvania were Eugene C. Bonniwell, a Democrat, and Thomas S. Butler, a Republican. Mr. Bonniwell, the unsuccessful candidate, filed an objection with the Speaker of the House, asking that Mr. Butler not be seated to represent the district. [...]"The Hon. Thomas S. Butler, the Republican nominee for Congress, was born and reared in the Society of Friends, and is proud of his Quaker ancestry. His opponent, Eugene C. Bonniwell, is a Roman Catholic."[...]On August 28, 1912, the Chester Republican reprinted this editorial. Coincident with the two said editorials messengers in the employ of supporters of Thomas S. Butler traversed the district, having in their possession and circulating a blasphemous and infamous libel, a copy of which is hereto attached, pretended to be an oath of the Knights of Columbus, of which body the contestant [Bonniwell] is a member. So revolting are the terms of this document and so nauseating its pledges that the injury it did not merely to the contestant but also to the Knights of Columbus and to Catholics in general can hardly be measured in terms.I charge that the circulation of this oath and the publication of the two editorials herein referred to were part of a conspiracy . . . for the purpose of arousing religious rancor and of defeating the Democratic nominee. The Constitution of the United States prohibits any religious test for office

I cite this because its intersting how people will cite the existence of somethign in the congressional record as demonstrating that its true (obviosuly you haven't said this, i just find it humourous.)

Getting back to the original source of the supposed oath:

Catholic Source
So likewise is the so-called Jesuit oath, a clumsy fabrication of the forger Robert Ware, exposed by Bridget in "Blunders and Forgeries".


Also here are different versions of the oath shown side by side. Which one is real and verified by the way??

And, just to be clear, who are you citing as the orignal source for the document? Ware, Didier, Chick or Rivera, and what evidence is given to show it as authentic???



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join