Ubenedictus:
the post wasn't addressed to you, it was addressed to someone who claimed the gospel was transmitted in the early church and that their understanding is a help in understanding scriptures.
if you share that belief then you may respond to the questions, if not waka pass.


which early church are you talking about, abi you think
the early church ended with Titus, if it didn't then you
can tell us its members.
I'm still asking who told you the Catholic Church
corrupted the Gospel,

Roman catholic church was created by the pagan roman empire.
The early church were scattered because of persecution.

solite3:
Roman catholic church was created by the pagan roman empire.
The early church were scattered because of persecution.

Yes, the present version of Roman Catholic Church was created by Roman Emperor Constantine after the Edict of Millan in 313 AD when he legalized and made it the state religion. However, before that the churches of God existed in Rome which as you said suffered much persecutions and scattered by the Roman authority. But since I'm not a historian, I can't talk about such with conviction as I would with the Bible. Hence, anyone who claims the present Roman Catholic Church is a continuation of the early churches in Rome, I can only challenge over that with the Word of God and not with history. I know very that the true early churches had the same as the apostles so any church that claims to be part of the early churches should have the same faith as the apostles. Now the faith of the apostles is written in the Bible, so the Bible has become the reservoir of truths to judge all doctrinal issues.

solite3:
Roman catholic church was created by the pagan roman empire.
The early church were scattered because of persecution.

the post wasn't addressed to you, it was addressed to
someone who claimed the gospel was transmitted in the
early church and that their understanding is a help in
understanding scriptures.
if you share that belief then you may respond to the
questions, if not waka pass.
which early church are you talking about, abi you think
the early church ended with Titus, if it didn't then you
can tell us its members.
I'm still asking who told you the Catholic Church
corrupted the Gospel,

live4dgospel:

Yes, the present version of Roman Catholic Church was created by Roman Emperor Constantine after the Edict of Millan in 313 AD when he legalized and made it the state religion. However, before that the churches of God existed in Rome which as you said suffered much persecutions and scattered by the Roman authority. But since I'm not a historian, I can't talk about such with conviction as I would with the Bible. Hence, anyone who claims the present Roman Catholic Church is a continuation of the early churches in Rome, I can only challenge over that with the Word of God and not with history. I know very that the true early churches had the same as the apostles so any church that claims to be part of the early churches should have the same faith as the apostles. Now the faith of the apostles is written in the Bible, so the Bible has become the reservoir of truths to judge all doctrinal issues.

if this is true then why do the belief of the Church before Constantine and the belief of the Church after Constantine totally agree? Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians but he didn't make it a state religion, that happened long after.

there is no historical proof that the Church scattered after Constantine, in fact that is untrue, the Church before Constantine stopped the persecution and the Church after Constantine stopped the persecution was same.

the early Church did receive the faith of the apostles but you won't agree with them because you seem to interpret scriptures wrongly according to someone called Martin Luther.

the faith of the apostles is in the Bible but not in the Bible alone, it is both in scriptures and committed to the early Church, unfortunately you will interpret it wrongly if you do not understand the sense in which it is taught.... the early Church presents us with the right context in which the Bible is to be understood.

live4dgospel:

I'm just happy as you cleared your conscience with the words above. If you can just set aside your temperament, stop the vain talks 'being insincere while being a Christian and reading the Scriptures', let's deal with the issue now: The core message here is that the early churches passed down the faith but along the way the devil agents e.g Roman Catholic corrupted the gospel, right? Now as I have told you, I would like to repeat, some of the early churches included the ones at Galatia "and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:"(Galatians 1:2) and some others in Rome, Philippines etc. Please humbly tell me the relevance of asking me to list the members of those churches, since it was not written in Bible? Or do you want me to search the web and bring out names of people which I cannot independently verify? I repeat, I can't do that cos the Bible is my power. Again if you say the members of the early churches are part of your Roman Catholic Church (as I guess you are trying to insinuate). Then I will not oppose this with my own opinions, rather let's judge it by comparing Roman Catholic Church doctrines with faith of the apostles as written in Bible, as we all know the true early churches inherited the same faith of the apostles. Since the faith of the apostles are written in the New Testament books, so the Bible becomes a powerful tool to reach a valid conclusion. Have I not tried to explain how irrelevant your question is? If you insist on such question, it therefore means you're weak and fidgeting.

lol,

I happen to hate useless argument so I'll let you go, even though I hate a discussions where the other person refuses to answer questions.

I'll address your earlier questions, I'll do better than that, I'll address your misconception, show you what the Church really teaches, show the scripture for it and the early Church interpretation of those scripture.

Ubenedictus:
if this is true then why do the belief of the Church before Constantine and the belief of the Church after Constantine totally agree? Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians but he didn't make it a state religion, that happened long after.

there is no historical proof that the Church scattered after Constantine, in fact that is untrue, the Church before Constantine stopped the persecution and the Church after Constantine stopped the persecution was same.

the early Church did receive the faith of the apostles but you won't agree with them because you seem to interpret scriptures wrongly according to someone called Martin Luther.

the faith of the apostles is in the Bible but not in the Bible alone, it is both in scriptures and committed to the early Church, unfortunately you will interpret it wrongly if you do not understand the sense in which it is taught.... the early Church presents us with the right context in which the Bible is to be understood.

I am neither a Protestant nor a Pentecostal, in fact I have never read any book about the so-called Martin Luther neither do I believe in his doctrines or others like him. However, I know he was one of the key men of the Reformation and a supporter of the Doctrine of Justification to comfort themselves. This doctrine claims that even though we have sin in our hearts, just because we believe in Jesus, God would regard us as righteous. This is only a man-made doctrine. People have made and believed in such a doctrine to hide their sins, trying to live in the complacency of this doctrine. But because they are still revealed as sinners before the Law, their sins come to weigh down heavier and heavier on their minds. To be freed from all our sins, we have no other choice but to believe in the gospel that contains God’s righteousness, and this is the gospel of the water and the Spirit we are now preaching to the whole world. This is the only way to be delivered from all our sins. But that is by the way. Let me address the issue you raised, If the faith of the true early churches(i.e the churches that received the same faith of the apostles) before agree with the present Roman Catholic Church, it therefore implies that what Roman Catholic Church believes is the same as what is written in Bible about the faith of the apostles, right? Now since you said the faith of apostles is in the Bible. I ask you to forget about the scriptures committed to the early church, since I can't validate them. And don't tell me it presents us with right context in which the Bible is to be understood because you have already said its the same as that written in the Bible. So go ahead and answer the previous questions I raised which you have agreed to answer with reference to Bible.

Ubenedictus:



lol,

I happen to hate useless argument so I'll let you go, even though I hate a discussions where the other person refuses to answer questions.

I'll address your earlier questions, I'll do better than that, I'll address your misconception, show you what the Church really teaches, show the scripture for it and the early Church interpretation of those scripture.

Don't tell me about the so-called 'early church interpretation', this is ridiculous! The early church members that gave the interpretation, are they not the ones you were asking me to provide of which I told you I could not deal with because it can't be proved biblically? I mean how can I know if the members of the early church that gave the interpretation are not the ones that perverted the gospel or the true ones that continued in the teachings of the apostles, as we see in the case of Galatia (Galatians 1:1-10). Even though I'm not a historian I'm not ignorant! Maybe those early church members you are trying to give me their interpretations now were actually the runners that handed the baton to the present day Roman Catholic Church. So go ahead and answer the questions with the Bible alone.

live4dgospel:

How then will you being part of the movement reject the heresies of Roman Catholic? Okay! If you are confident in yourself, answer these questions. Where is it written in the Bible that any one who tries to find the truth with the Bible on his own should be executed, as the Inquisition did in the past, if it was not an attempt to divert the attention of the true seekers from finding the faults in Catholicism? And show me where it is written in the Bible that Mary is divine and she can intercede for us in prayers, and show also where and when the apostles or the early church believed and did so, if it's not true that Roman Catholic corrupted the gospel?

the first issue you raised is the Inquisition abi?


funny enough the Inquisition was formed to prevent the senseless killing of Christians by secular courts on charges of heresy, 2ndly the inquisition was the most just medieval court system of its time and was prohibited by the Church from pronouncing death sentence.

it is only people who are misinformed who go about shouting about the inquisition.

maybe I'll explain.


by 1200ad almost all of Europe had converted to Christianity, all the kings were Christian kings...in fact in 1200 if you went about shouting that Jesus is a mere prophet not God, you will immediately cause social unrest....I'll give you an example... about the 400s a bishop taught in his Church that there are two Jesus, one Jesus was a man the other was a God, the bishops name was Nestorius... there was immediate protest in the entire city and social unrest followed. to prevent such from happening the state criminalised heresy...it was a criminal offense to teach heresy... this was to prevent the civil unrest that usually happened, so if someone taught heresy he may be handed over to the state to be judged instead of protesting.


some people started to abuse this an started to accuse innocent people of heresy, and many of the secular courts didn't know so much about heresy and could easily punish the innocent... the state too doesn't have the power to decide right doctrine....this is what gave rise to the inquisition. States requested that the Church provide learned men in theology who can truly tell if the doctrine in question is heretical, to prevent the innocent from been punished.

the inquisition strictly was a group of learned men who examined a certain teaching and decided if it was heretical or not. it was movable... so if the inquisition comes to a town, it will declare some days of grace and any heretic in the town was allowed to report himself and go home free, if after the grace period someone was accused of heresy, the accused is told to provide a list of his enemies, your enemy cannot testify against you... if the accusation is by those in the list you provided then you go home free. if not you'll be asked to explain what you believe, if there is heresy in it you'll be asked to recant and go home... if you don't recant and they are convinced it is heresy, then you will be handed over to the state, then you will be tried and punished according to state laws. the inquisition never sentenced people that was the state courts.

there is nothing in the inquisition about preventing people from finding the truth with your Bible. in fact reading the Bible was not a crime or an issue with the inquisition, the only thing that was frowned at was deliberately mistranslation of the Bible and distribution of mistranslated bibles, so 800 years ago the Jehovah witness Bible that says Jesus is a god, and those who deliberately mistranslated and distributed such bibles will be in trouble and such mistranslated bibles will be burnt.

so that is the number 1 misconception... the inquisition never prevented people from reading the Bible nor did it kill people, its job is to determine if a particular teaching was heretical to prevent the state from punishing the innocent.

who give the Church the right to determine heresy and truth? and judge matters? I guess you can answer that.


as for the state who acted to prevent civil unrest well this is the passage they based their rights on


ROM 14

Everyone must submit to the governing
authorities, for there is no authority except from
God, and those that exist are instituted by God.
So then, the one who resists the authority is
opposing God’s command, and those who oppose
it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers
are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do
you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what
is good, and you will have its approval. For
government is God’s servant for your good. But if
you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry
the sword for no reason. For government is God’s
servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one
who does wrong.

live4dgospel:

Don't tell me about the so-called 'early church interpretation', this is ridiculous! The early church members that gave the interpretation, are they not the ones you were asking me to provide of which I told you I could not deal with because it can't be proved biblically? I mean how can I know if the members of the early church that gave the interpretation are not the ones that perverted the gospel or the true ones that continued in the teachings of the apostles, as we see in the case of Galatia (Galatians 1:1-10). Even though I'm not a historian I'm not ignorant! Maybe those early church members you are trying to give me their interpretations now were actually the runners that handed the baton to the present day Roman Catholic Church. So go ahead and answer the questions with the Bible alone.

if you can't verify who the early Church was then I encourage you to go and make research and verify who they were and what they believed, because believe me I won't be interpreting the Bible the way you protestant love to do which is pretty much misinterpretation, I'll be going back to how the entire Christian Church has always taught and understood those scripture... so make up your mind, I won't be using the Bible alone but the Bible alone with the apostolic teaching taught in the early Church.

live4dgospel:

I am neither a Protestant nor a Pentecostal, in fact I have never read any book about the so-called Martin Luther neither do I believe in his doctrines or others like him. However, I know he was one of the key men of the Reformation and a supporter of the Doctrine of Justification to comfort themselves. This doctrine claims that even though we have sin in our hearts, just because we believe in Jesus, God would regard us as righteous. This is only a man-made doctrine. People have made and believed in such a doctrine to hide their sins, trying to live in the complacency of this doctrine. But because they are still revealed as sinners before the Law, their sins come to weigh down heavier and heavier on their minds. To be freed from all our sins, we have no other choice but to believe in the gospel that contains God’s righteousness, and this is the gospel of the water and the Spirit we are now preaching to the whole world. This is the only way to be delivered from all our sins. But that is by the way. Let me address the issue you raised, If the faith of the true early churches(i.e the churches that received the same faith of the apostles) before agree with the present Roman Catholic Church, it therefore implies that what Roman Catholic Church believes is the same as what is written in Bible about the faith of the apostles, right? Now since you said the faith of apostles is in the Bible. I ask you to forget about the scriptures committed to the early church, since I can't validate them. And don't tell me it presents us with right context in which the Bible is to be understood because you have already said its the same as that written in the Bible. So go ahead and answer the previous questions I raised which you have agreed to answer with reference to Bible.

first, you reject one of the doctrine invented by Luther but you still believe in other, the doctrine of Bible Alone you have been using was invented by him.

2ndly the interpretation of the Bible is the issue, I can go about writing Bible verses but both of us will disagree on its interpretation... that is the issue. if I'll be discussing scriptures with you then the real issue is the interpretation. the early Church interpreted it in line with apostolic teaching and maintained one Church, Protestant interprete the Bible according to their own understanding and have 16000+denominations and new ones every day.

Ubenedictus:


first, you reject one of the doctrine invented by Luther but you still believe in other, the doctrine of Bible Alone you have been using was invented by him.

2ndly the interpretation of the Bible is the issue, I can go about writing Bible verses but both of us will disagree on its interpretation... that is the issue. if I'll be discussing scriptures with you then the real issue is the interpretation. the early Church interpreted it in line with apostolic teaching and maintained one Church, Protestant interprete the Bible according to their own understanding and have 16000+denominations and new ones every day.

If you want to know what we believe download one of our books and read and stop comparing my faith with Luther. I have told you I don't believe in his doctrine, I have not read any of his books. I only know of him when reading about the church history. If you fear there will be a clash in interpretation of the scriptures then rest your case

Ubenedictus:
if you can't verify who the early Church was then I encourage you to go and make research and verify who they were and what they believed, because believe me I won't be interpreting the Bible the way you protestant love to do which is pretty much misinterpretation, I'll be going back to how the entire Christian Church has always taught and understood those scripture... so make up your mind, I won't be using the Bible alone but the Bible alone with the apostolic teaching taught in the early Church.

If you you can't use the Bible alone then rest your case, I will not entertain presenting 'unknown and imaginary early church members and their interpretation'. This is a deception of the highest order common to all Catholics.

Ubenedictus:


the first issue you raised is the Inquisition abi?


funny enough the Inquisition was formed to prevent the senseless killing of Christians by secular courts on charges of heresy, 2ndly the inquisition was the most just medieval court system of its time and was prohibited by the Church from pronouncing death sentence.

it is only people who are misinformed who go about shouting about the inquisition.

maybe I'll explain.


by 1200ad almost all of Europe had converted to Christianity, all the kings were Christian kings...in fact in 1200 if you went about shouting that Jesus is a mere prophet not God, you will immediately cause social unrest....I'll give you an example... about the 400s a bishop taught in his Church that there are two Jesus, one Jesus was a man the other was a God, the bishops name was Nestorius... there was immediate protest in the entire city and social unrest followed. to prevent such from happening the state criminalised heresy...it was a criminal offense to teach heresy... this was to prevent the civil unrest that usually happened, so if someone taught heresy he may be handed over to the state to be judged instead of protesting.


some people started to abuse this an started to accuse innocent people of heresy, and many of the secular courts didn't know so much about heresy and could easily punish the innocent... the state too doesn't have the power to decide right doctrine....this is what gave rise to the inquisition. States requested that the Church provide learned men in theology who can truly tell if the doctrine in question is heretical, to prevent the innocent from been punished.

the inquisition strictly was a group of learned men who examined a certain teaching and decided if it was heretical or not. it was movable... so if the inquisition comes to a town, it will declare some days of grace and any heretic in the town was allowed to report himself and go home free, if after the grace period someone was accused of heresy, the accused is told to provide a list of his enemies, your enemy cannot testify against you... if the accusation is by those in the list you provided then you go home free. if not you'll be asked to explain what you believe, if there is heresy in it you'll be asked to recant and go home... if you don't recant and they are convinced it is heresy, then you will be handed over to the state, then you will be tried and punished according to state laws. the inquisition never sentenced people that was the state courts.

there is nothing in the inquisition about preventing people from finding the truth with your Bible. in fact reading the Bible was not a crime or an issue with the inquisition, the only thing that was frowned at was deliberately mistranslation of the Bible and distribution of mistranslated bibles, so 800 years ago the Jehovah witness Bible that says Jesus is a god, and those who deliberately mistranslated and distributed such bibles will be in trouble and such mistranslated bibles will be burnt.

so that is the number 1 misconception... the inquisition never prevented people from reading the Bible nor did it kill people, its job is to determine if a particular teaching was heretical to prevent the state from punishing the innocent.

who give the Church the right to determine heresy and truth? and judge matters? I guess you can answer that.


as for the state who acted to prevent civil unrest well this is the passage they based their rights on


ROM 14

Everyone must submit to the governing
authorities, for there is no authority except from
God, and those that exist are instituted by God.
So then, the one who resists the authority is
opposing God’s command, and those who oppose
it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers
are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do
you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what
is good, and you will have its approval. For
government is God’s servant for your good. But if
you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry
the sword for no reason. For government is God’s
servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one
who does wrong.

I hope that you understand everything that you said here. If you do then let me address the issue. The Roman Inquisition was not established by the state because of civil unrest, this is your first lie! Rather the Inquisition was establised by Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church in the 15th century as Catholic Church's Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism. And Roman Catholic appointed people to preside over it. The purpose of the Inquisition, if you don't know, was to combat whatever Roman Catholic called heresy and alternate religious doctrine, this is your second lie! The Inquisition moved further to tackle some other issues like love magic, witchcraft, cultural morality, superstitions, Judaizing, sorcery, blasphemy, immorality etc. From its inception The Roman Catholic Church was fully responsible for all judgement and prosecution, this is yet another lie from you. It was later after the 18th century that the state started suppressing all the local Inquisitions and finally eliminated the power of the Church to prosecute heresy. Again the trial of Galileo Galilei provided a clue to what the Inquisition was all about, even though he was forced to recant from his view, he was still sentenced to house arrest till his death. This is yet another lie from you for saying that Inquisition gave people chance to abandon their beliefs. There was some other thing you hid, that's "forced confession", the Inquisition was well known for forcing people to make false confession i.e they forced people to say they did what they didn't do by torturing them, especially the rich and wealthy, all in effort to confiscate their properties after executing them! This is still yet a proof that Emperor Constantine not only legalized Catholicism but also made it state religion, this is what you previously denied! Could a church exercise such power, if the state didn't support it? I think, it is either you have poor knowledge of church history or you tried to hide the truth.

live4dgospel:

If you you can't use the Bible alone then rest your case, I will not entertain presenting 'unknown and imaginary early church members and their interpretation'. This is a deception of the highest order common to all Catholics.

there is nothing imaginary or unknown about the early Christians, unless you are totally averse to making research or intellectually lazy, or so dishonest that you wouldn't even dare to look at their writings.... or all of the above.

there is nothing imaginary or unknown about the early Christians I'll be quoting, there is no deception there, unless of course you are aware that the way you misinterpret the Bible is totally wrong and contradictory to the entire Christian faith.

Ubenedictus:
there is nothing imaginary or unknown about the early Christians, unless you are totally averse to making research or intellectually lazy, or so dishonest that you wouldn't even dare to look at their writings.... or all of the above.

there is nothing imaginary or unknown about the early Christians I'll be quoting, there is no deception there, unless of course you are aware that the way you misinterpret the Bible is totally wrong and contradictory to the entire Christian faith.

I can't imagine what has driven Catholics into such deception! I asked you to present your case with the Bible reference not with some other people I don't know, which you called early church. If at all the Spirit is inside you, why won't you then interprete the Bible? So anyone who does not have access to your so-called early church interpretation will not interprete the Bible? This led me to wonder whether you actually know how the early church received the teachings from the apostles. Let me help you sir, the apostles preached the gospel and make more disciples as commanded by the Lord, then after establishing churches in many places, apostles were teaching in the churches about different issues. If they couldn't personally attend the church to teach, they simply wrote letters to the churches. The born again saints had received the Holy Spirit, so they understood what the apostles taught naturally. Their letters are available to us in the Bible now, so what other private interpretation are you talking about? If at all there were interpretations from your so-called early church, then such interpretations won't contradict the Bible itself for them to be true, so what's your fear. Remember all your fears stem from the questions I asked you: You have already failed woefully for the first one. Can you attempt the second? The question goes this way: Show me from the Bible the apostles teachings about the divinity of Mary the mother of Jesus?

live4dgospel:

I hope that you understand everything that you said here. If you do then let me address the issue. The Roman Inquisition was not established by the state because of civil unrest, this is your first lie! Rather the Inquisition was establised by Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church in the 15th century as Catholic Church's Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism. And Roman Catholic appointed people to preside over it. The purpose of the Inquisition, if you don't know, was to combat whatever Roman Catholic called heresy and alternate religious doctrine, this is your second lie! The Inquisition moved further to tackle some other issues like love magic, witchcraft, cultural morality, superstitions, Judaizing, sorcery, blasphemy, immorality etc. From its inception The Roman Catholic Church was fully responsible for all judgement and prosecution, this is yet another lie from you. It was later after the 18th century that the state started suppressing all the local Inquisitions and finally eliminated the power of the Church to prosecute heresy. Again the trial of Galileo Galilei provided a clue to what the Inquisition was all about, even though he was forced to recant from his view, he was still sentenced to house arrest till his death. This is yet another lie from you for saying that Inquisition gave people chance to abandon their beliefs. There was some other thing you hid, that's "forced confession", the Inquisition was well known for forcing people to make false confession i.e they forced people to say they did what they didn't do by torturing them, especially the rich and wealthy, all in effort to confiscate their properties after executing them! This is still yet a proof that Emperor Constantine not only legalized Catholicism but also made it state religion, this is what you previously denied! Could a church exercise such power, if the state didn't support it? I think, it is either you have poor knowledge of church history or you tried to hide the truth.

again you seem largely ignorant of this topic.



the inquisition began in the 12th century not the 15th century, it predates the Protestant Reformation by over 300 years, so you are incorrect, the inquisition was not started in the 15th century.

the inquisition is a Church trial but it never pronounced a death sentence, it was forbidden from condemning anyone to death, all who were unrepentant heretics were handed over to the magistrate of the state, it was the state who did the sentencing, let me tell you something, in the over 300 years of the Spanish inquisition Spain still has records of over 44000 cases were tried less than 1% was handed over to the state and got a death sentence .... it was the least bloody court in all Europe, in fact criminals in the secular courts usually appealed to be brought before the inquisition because they knew they will have the least sentence... a inquisition of over 300 years only convicted less than 1% for heresy and still less got a death sentence from the secular courts while the Protestant king Henry alone executed an estimated 57000 people in just 12
years... that should tell you how lenient it was.

there was recanting, Galileo was treated harshly as a political matter, he had insulted a few people who used his trial to get him, but even at that he wasn't given death sentence even though he was found guilty of suspected heresy, he was sent to his castle to spend the rest of his days, not even a prison...his property was not confiticated and he still got family around and could write. in a Protestant England he would have been killed just for going to mass.

every court in Europe used torture but none was as guided as the inquisition which was prohibited from drawing blood, from injuring and from loss of limbs with the presence of a doctor and to be used once Protestants didn't have such restrictions.


lastly you should learn to make your research it is wrong to speak in ignorance. Christianity was made a state religion by the Edict of Thessalonica in 380
AD, by Emperor Theodosius I not Constantine. make research and stop spewing untruth

Ubenedictus:
again you seem largely ignorant of this topic.



the inquisition began in the 12th century not the 15th century, it predates the Protestant Reformation by over 300 years, so you are incorrect, the inquisition was not started in the 15th century.

the inquisition is a Church trial but it never pronounced a death sentence, it was forbidden from condemning anyone to death, all who were unrepentant heretics were handed over to the magistrate of the state, it was the state who did the sentencing, let me tell you something, in the over 300 years of the Spanish inquisition Spain still has records of over 44000 cases were tried less than 1% was handed over to the state and got a death sentence .... it was the least bloody court in all Europe, in fact criminals in the secular courts usually appealed to be brought before the inquisition because they knew they will have the least sentence... a inquisition of over 300 years only convicted less than 1% for heresy and still less got a death sentence from the secular courts while the Protestant king Henry alone executed an estimated 57000 people in just 12
years... that should tell you how lenient it was.

there was recanting, Galileo was treated harshly as a political matter, he had insulted a few people who used his trial to get him, but even at that he wasn't given death sentence even though he was found guilty of suspected heresy, he was sent to his castle to spend the rest of his days, not even a prison...his property was not confiticated and he still got family around and could write. in a Protestant England he would have been killed just for going to mass.

every court in Europe used torture but none was as guided as the inquisition which was prohibited from drawing blood, from injuring and from loss of limbs with the presence of a doctor and to be used once Protestants didn't have such restrictions.


lastly you should learn to make your research it is wrong to speak in ignorance. Christianity was made a state religion by the Edict of Thessalonica in 380
AD, by Emperor Theodosius I not Constantine. make research and stop spewing untruth

If there were other Inquisitions before 15th century, it was certainly not Roman Inquisition which is formally known as Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman
and Universal Inquisition. Moreover we are talking about Italy and The Roman Inquisition, why you are comparing Spanish Inquisition and Edict of Thessalonica. If other Inquisitions were harsher is not the point of contention now, the point was the Roman Inquisition was harsh enough to take the lives of thousands if not millions! To be precise historians put the figure around 100,000 to 9,000,000 executions!!! Again I say to you, you have poor knowledge of church history. I will permit you to research more! You seem to depend on your church side of the event which is hugely flawed. Are you still insisting that the Inquisition was not developed by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church as a Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism in 1542? Are also still insisting that the Roman Inquisition was not responsible for tribunal rulings and pronouncements of punishment? Then How great are your lies! I give you more time to investigate!!!

live4dgospel:

I can't imagine what has driven Catholics into such deception! I asked you to present your case with the Bible reference not with some other people I don't know, which you called early church. If at all the Spirit is inside you, why won't you then interprete the Bible? So anyone who does not have access to your so-called early church interpretation will not interprete the Bible? This led me to wonder whether you actually know how the early church received the teachings from the apostles. Let me help you sir, the apostles preached the gospel and make more disciples as commanded by the Lord, then after establishing churches in many places, apostles were teaching in the churches about different issues. If they couldn't personally attend the church to teach, they simply wrote letters to the churches. The born again saints had received the Holy Spirit, so they understood what the apostles taught naturally. Their letters are available to us in the Bible now, so what other private interpretation are you talking about? If at all there were interpretations from your so-called early church, then such interpretations won't contradict the Bible itself for them to be true, so what's your fear. Remember all your fears stem from the questions I asked you: You have already failed woefully for the first one. Can you attempt the second? The question goes this way: Show me from the Bible the apostles teachings about the divinity of Mary the mother of Jesus?

neither the Catholic church nor the early Church nor the Bible teach "the divinity of Mary mother of Jesus", that was a lie you were told Catholics believe... your misconceptions are pretty easy to dismiss because there is no truth in them.

first you were misinformed that Constantine made Christianity a state religion and that was a big lie you were told, it was Theodosius who made Christianity a state religion by the edict of Thessalonica.

2nd you were misinformed that the inquisition was began by the Church in the 15th century, that was another lie you were told, the inquisition actually began in the 12th century before Protestantism began.

3rd the Bible wasn't written as a catalog of all Christian belief, in fact the apostles mainly preached orally and wrote usually to address specific issues in the local churches where they had already committed the fullness of the faith orally. in fact in 2 thess the apostle clearly teach that the Church must hold on to the teaching committed to her both in writing and orally NOT Bible alone. in fact Bible alone is not biblical... the Bible tell us to use both the Bible and the witness of the Church who have received the Gospel orally. that is why the witness of the early Christian is indispensable in getting the context and right interpretation of the Christian belief.

live4dgospel:

If there were other Inquisitions before 15th century, it was certainly not Roman Inquisition which is formally known as Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman
and Universal Inquisition. Moreover we are talking about Italy and The Roman Inquisition, why you are comparing Spanish Inquisition and Edict of Thessalonica. If other Inquisitions were harsher is not the point of contention now, the point was the Roman Inquisition was harsh enough to take the lives of thousands if not millions! To be precise historians put the figure around 100,000 to 9,000,000 executions!!! Again I say to you, you have poor knowledge of church history. I will permit you to research more! You seem to depend on your church side of the event which is hugely flawed. Are you still insisting that the Inquisition was not developed by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church as a Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism in 1542? Are also still insisting that the Roman Inquisition was not responsible for tribunal rulings and pronouncements of punishment? Then How great are your lies! I give you more time to investigate!!!

actually what you have above is a lie.

the Roman Inquisition is estimated to have tried 70,000 case not up to a million and and is estimated to have found less than 1300 people worthy of the secular option in over 300 years.


this is wiki


In-depth historical research regarding
minor details of different types of magic, theological
heresies, and political climate of The Reformation
further revealed that Inquisitorial procedures greatly
restrained witch hunting in Italy. Scholars specializing
in the Renaissance and Early Modern period such as
Guido Ruggiero, Christopher F. Black, and Mary O'Neil
also discussed the importance of proper procedures
and sparse use of torture. The low rate of torture and
lawful interrogation, Black argued, means that trials
tended to focus more on individual accusation, instead
of groups. For the same reason, the notion of the
Black Sabbath was much less accepted in
contemporary Italian popular culture. [1][24][25] The
Holy Office's function in the disenchantment of popular
culture also helped advance rationalism by getting rid
of superstitions. Jeffrey R. Watt refutes s the feminist
claim that the Inquisition was responsible for the death
of so many women. Watt points out that in 1588 the
Roman Curia stated it would only allow testimony
about participation in a Sabbath by the practitioners
themselves and not by outside witnesses. Additionally,
the Inquisition would eventually ban torture for the
procurement of a witchcraft confession.

Ubenedictus:
neither the Catholic church nor the early Church nor the Bible teach "the divinity of Mary mother of Jesus", that was a lie you were told Catholics believe... your misconceptions are pretty easy to dismiss because there is no truth in them.

first you were misinformed that Constantine made Christianity a state religion and that was a big lie you were told, it was Theodosius who made Christianity a state religion by the edict of Thessalonica.

2nd you were misinformed that the inquisition was began by the Church in the 15th century, that was another lie you were told, the inquisition actually began in the 12th century before Protestantism began.

3rd the Bible wasn't written as a catalog of all Christian belief, in fact the apostles mainly preached orally and wrote usually to address specific issues in the local churches where they had already committed the fullness of the faith orally. in fact in 2 thess the apostle clearly teach that the Church must hold on to the teaching committed to her both in writing and orally NOT Bible alone. in fact Bible alone is not biblical... the Bible tell us to use both the Bible and the witness of the Church who have received the Gospel orally. that is why the witness of the early Christian is indispensable in getting the context and right interpretation of the Christian belief.

I still don't know why you use Inquisition, rather than Roman Inquisition to be specific, because there were other Inquisitions, Roman Inquisition was the third variety. Is your history different from the world history? If Mary is not divine as you claim why then do you ask a 'physically' dead woman to intercede in prayer? Again I have already said that the apostles taught in churches but when they couldn't they wrote letters. Then do you think God is not wise? I mean do you think the oral teachings of the apostles are really indispensable and prerequisites for the interpretation of the written ones? How were the Old Testament Scriptures given to us, how was the Law given to us. Did Moses meet Abraham and Noah? God had everything written down because He understood the limitations of human memory! Why then do Roman Catholic Church lays too much emphasis on the oral teachings, which none of you I'm sure, can independently validate, are you wiser than God? We know the apostles very well as the ones who personally met the Lord and whom the Lord handed over the gospel, but as for the so-called early church members we can't validate! Again I say to you, you're living in the ocean of deception the earlier you know this the better for you.

Ubenedictus:
actually what you have above is a lie.

the Roman Inquisition is estimated to have tried 70,000 case not up to a million and and is estimated to have found less than 1300 people worthy of the secular option in over 300 years.


this is wiki


In-depth historical research regarding
minor details of different types of magic, theological
heresies, and political climate of The Reformation
further revealed that Inquisitorial procedures greatly
restrained witch hunting in Italy. Scholars specializing
in the Renaissance and Early Modern period such as
Guido Ruggiero, Christopher F. Black, and Mary O'Neil
also discussed the importance of proper procedures
and sparse use of torture. The low rate of torture and
lawful interrogation, Black argued, means that trials
tended to focus more on individual accusation, instead
of groups. For the same reason, the notion of the
Black Sabbath was much less accepted in
contemporary Italian popular culture. [1][24][25] The
Holy Office's function in the disenchantment of popular
culture also helped advance rationalism by getting rid
of superstitions. Jeffrey R. Watt refutes s the feminist
claim that the Inquisition was responsible for the death
of so many women. Watt points out that in 1588 the
Roman Curia stated it would only allow testimony
about participation in a Sabbath by the practitioners
themselves and not by outside witnesses. Additionally,
the Inquisition would eventually ban torture for the
procurement of a witchcraft confession.

My own history is not just from Wikipedia alone but from history books, but your history is from your church which is greatly flawed. It's just like the different between the Nigerian and Biafran historical records of the War! Or better the difference between the Nigerian Military figures casualties and the eye witnesses figures! The wider you read the better for you!!!

live4dgospel:

My own history is not just from Wikipedia alone but from history books, but your history is from your church which is greatly flawed. It's just like the different between the Nigerian and Biafran historical records of the War! Or better the difference between the Nigerian Military figures casualties and the eye witnesses figures! The wider you read the better for you!!!

I have read wide on this, that is why I gave you wiki not any church sources, in fact all the guys quoted in that article are secular historians.

Ubenedictus:
I have read wide on this, that is why I gave you wiki not any church sources, in fact all the guys quoted in that article are secular historians.

I'm still saying: you need to read wider. However this is what I just found from wiki , this is online wikepdia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition

live4dgospel:

I'm still saying: you need to read wider. However this is what I just found from wiki , this is online wikepdia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition

even Wikipedia agrees with me.

from your link


Through further research and available evidence, the
Roman Inquisition was seen in a different light. In
contrast with feminist arguments, historians like Clarke
Garrett, Brian Levack, John Tedeschi, Matteo Duni, and
Diane Purkiss pointed out that most witch trials and
executions were conducted by local and secular
authorities. [19][20][21][22][23] Clarke Garrett mentioned
the quick decline and insignificance of the Malleus
Maleficarum. In-depth historical research regarding
minor details of different types of magic, theological
heresies, and political climate of The Reformation
further revealed that Inquisitorial procedures greatly
restrained witch hunting in Italy. Scholars specializing
in the Renaissance and Early Modern period such as
Guido Ruggiero, Christopher F. Black, and Mary O'Neil
also discussed the importance of proper procedures
and sparse use of torture. The low rate of torture and
lawful interrogation, Black argued, means that trials
tended to focus more on individual accusation, instead
of groups. For the same reason, the notion of the
Black Sabbath was much less accepted in
contemporary Italian popular culture. [1][24][25] The
Holy Office's function in the disenchantment of popular
culture also helped advance rationalism by getting rid
of superstitions. Jeffrey R. Watt refutes s the feminist
claim that the Inquisition was responsible for the death
of so many women. Watt points out that in 1588 the
Roman Curia stated it would only allow testimony
about participation in a Sabbath by the practitioners
themselves and not by outside witnesses. Additionally,
the Inquisition would eventually ban torture for the
procurement of a witchcraft confession

Ubenedictus:
even Wikipedia agrees with me.

from your link


Through further research and available evidence, the
Roman Inquisition was seen in a different light. In
contrast with feminist arguments, historians like Clarke
Garrett, Brian Levack, John Tedeschi, Matteo Duni, and
Diane Purkiss pointed out that most witch trials and
executions were conducted by local and secular
authorities. [19][20][21][22][23] Clarke Garrett mentioned
the quick decline and insignificance of the Malleus
Maleficarum. In-depth historical research regarding
minor details of different types of magic, theological
heresies, and political climate of The Reformation
further revealed that Inquisitorial procedures greatly
restrained witch hunting in Italy. Scholars specializing
in the Renaissance and Early Modern period such as
Guido Ruggiero, Christopher F. Black, and Mary O'Neil
also discussed the importance of proper procedures
and sparse use of torture. The low rate of torture and
lawful interrogation, Black argued, means that trials
tended to focus more on individual accusation, instead
of groups. For the same reason, the notion of the
Black Sabbath was much less accepted in
contemporary Italian popular culture. [1][24][25] The
Holy Office's function in the disenchantment of popular
culture also helped advance rationalism by getting rid
of superstitions. Jeffrey R. Watt refutes s the feminist
claim that the Inquisition was responsible for the death
of so many women. Watt points out that in 1588 the
Roman Curia stated it would only allow testimony
about participation in a Sabbath by the practitioners
themselves and not by outside witnesses. Additionally,
the Inquisition would eventually ban torture for the
procurement of a witchcraft confession

Why are you so convinced about one side of the story. Didn't you see the number of executions there? Didn't you see the considerations of other historians there?

live4dgospel:

Why are you so convinced about one side of the story. Didn't you see the number of executions there? Didn't you see the considerations of other historians there?

I saw the number of executions. it says

Italian historian Andrea Del Col estimates that out of
51,000 — 75,000 cases judged by Inquisition in Italy
after 1542 around 1,250 resulted in a death
sentence


that is the estimate....


the other historians who had high figures were all refuted right there by other historians, in fact wiki says

Roman Inquisition was seen in a different light. In
contrast with feminist arguments, historians like Clarke
Garrett, Brian Levack, John Tedeschi, Matteo Duni, and
Diane Purkiss pointed out that most witch trials and
executions were conducted by local and secular
authorities. [19][20][21][22][23] Clarke Garrett mentioned
the quick decline and insignificance of the Malleus
Maleficarum. In-depth historical research regarding
minor details of different types of magic, theological
heresies, and political climate of The Reformation
further revealed that Inquisitorial procedures greatly
restrained witch hunting in Italy. Scholars specializing
in the Renaissance and Early Modern period such as
Guido Ruggiero, Christopher F. Black, and Mary O'Neil
also discussed the importance of proper procedures
and sparse use of torture. The low rate of torture and
lawful interrogation, Black argued, means that trials
tended to focus more on individual accusation, instead
of groups.



so upon further research those outrageous figures have been refuted and it seems the Roman inquisition made sparse use of torture, in fact the Protestant and secular courts were more guilty of that, the inquisition had far less executions and prevented the mad supposed witch trial and execution that was common in Protestant areas.

Ubenedictus:


I saw the number of executions. it says

Italian historian Andrea Del Col estimates that out of
51,000 — 75,000 cases judged by Inquisition in Italy
after 1542 around 1,250 resulted in a death
sentence


that is the estimate....


the other historians who had high figures were all refuted right there by other historians, in fact wiki says

Roman Inquisition was seen in a different light. In
contrast with feminist arguments, historians like Clarke
Garrett, Brian Levack, John Tedeschi, Matteo Duni, and
Diane Purkiss pointed out that most witch trials and
executions were conducted by local and secular
authorities. [19][20][21][22][23] Clarke Garrett mentioned
the quick decline and insignificance of the Malleus
Maleficarum. In-depth historical research regarding
minor details of different types of magic, theological
heresies, and political climate of The Reformation
further revealed that Inquisitorial procedures greatly
restrained witch hunting in Italy. Scholars specializing
in the Renaissance and Early Modern period such as
Guido Ruggiero, Christopher F. Black, and Mary O'Neil
also discussed the importance of proper procedures
and sparse use of torture. The low rate of torture and
lawful interrogation, Black argued, means that trials
tended to focus more on individual accusation, instead
of groups.



so upon further research those outrageous figures have been refuted and it seems the Roman inquisition made sparse use of torture, in fact the Protestant and secular courts were more guilty of that, the inquisition had far less executions and prevented the mad supposed witch trial and execution that was common in Protestant areas.

It seems that you have lost focus on the line of the argument, the point is not the number of executions. As I have said earlier there were thousands of executions if not in millions!!! My message is always clear: The purpose of the Roman Inquisition is to draw the attention of the true seekers from finding the fault in Catholicism, thereby powerfully and influentially corrupting the gospel. But this is what you denied, claiming that the Roman Inquisition was developed because of civil unrest, but from the Wikipedia link I shared to you, it was made clear that the Roman Inquisition was developed to combat whatever the Roman Catholic church termed heresy and alternate religious doctrines and as a Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism.

live4dgospel:

It seems that you have lost focus on the line of the argument, the point is not the number of executions. As I have said earlier there were thousands of executions if not in millions!!! My message is always clear: The purpose of the Roman Inquisition is to draw the attention of the true seekers from finding the fault in Catholicism, thereby powerfully and influentially corrupting the gospel. But this is what you denied, claiming that the Roman Inquisition was developed because of civil unrest, but from the Wikipedia link I shared to you, it was made clear that the Roman Inquisition was developed to combat whatever the Roman Catholic church termed heresy and alternate religious doctrines and as a Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism.

Brother note that we don't have history in our hand but the Word of God. So don't waste your time on the things that we may not be able to independently verify. Let's move forward in spreading the gospel of water and the Spirit to the whole world. This is the only gospel of salvation everyone must hear. Those who hear the gospel but despite knowing it still reject it deserve nothing but eternal hell.

Thegospelman:

Brother note that we don't have history in our hand but the Word of God. So don't waste your time on the things that we may not be able to independently verify. Let's move forward in spreading the gospel of water and the Spirit to the whole world. This is the only gospel of salvation everyone must hear. Those who hear the gospel but despite knowing it still reject it deserve nothing but eternal hell.

just like the new generation Church, always quick to threaten with hell fire

live4dgospel:

It seems that you have lost focus on the line of the argument, the point is not the number of executions. As I have said earlier there were thousands of executions if not in millions!!! My message is always clear: The purpose of the Roman Inquisition is to draw the attention of the true seekers from finding the fault in Catholicism, thereby powerfully and influentially corrupting the gospel. But this is what you denied, claiming that the Roman Inquisition was developed because of civil unrest, but from the Wikipedia link I shared to you, it was made clear that the Roman Inquisition was developed to combat whatever the Roman Catholic church termed heresy and alternate religious doctrines and as a Counter-Reformation against the spread of Protestantism.

the inquisition it self was created to stem civil unrest and provide a just system, it began in the 12 century and that is true, its aim isn't to stop people from reading the Bible but to make sure the state didn't punish innocent people for crimes they weren't guilty of, you can read that up here.

http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/trial96/loftis/overview.html




here is a quote.


Another reason for Pope Gregory IX's creation of the
Inquisition was to bring order and legality to the process
of dealing with heresy, since there had been tendencies
in the mobs of townspeople to burn alleged heretics
without much of a trial. Pope Gregory's original intent for
the Inquisition was a court of exception to inquire into
and glean the beliefs of those differing from Catholic
teaching, and to instruct them in the orthodox doctrine.
It was hoped that heretics would see the falsity of the ir
opinion and would return to the Roman Catholic Church.
If they persisted in their heresy, however, Pope Gregory,
finding it necessary to protect the Catholic community
from infection would have suspects handed over to civil
authorities since these her etics had violated not only
Church law but civil law as well. The secular authorities
would apply their own brands of punishment for civil
disobedience which, at the time, included burning at the
stake.

so again I was correct, the Inquisition didn't execute people that was left to the state.

Love Life.

Ubenedictus:


the inquisition it self was created to stem civil unrest and provide a just system, it began in the 12 century and that is true, its aim isn't to stop people from reading the Bible but to make sure the state didn't punish innocent people for crimes they weren't guilty of, you can read that up here.

http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/trial96/loftis/overview.html




here is a quote.


Another reason for Pope Gregory IX's creation of the
Inquisition was to bring order and legality to the process
of dealing with heresy, since there had been tendencies
in the mobs of townspeople to burn alleged heretics
without much of a trial. Pope Gregory's original intent for
the Inquisition was a court of exception to inquire into
and glean the beliefs of those differing from Catholic
teaching, and to instruct them in the orthodox doctrine.
It was hoped that heretics would see the falsity of the ir
opinion and would return to the Roman Catholic Church.
If they persisted in their heresy, however, Pope Gregory,
finding it necessary to protect the Catholic community
from infection would have suspects handed over to civil
authorities since these her etics had violated not only
Church law but civil law as well. The secular authorities
would apply their own brands of punishment for civil
disobedience which, at the time, included burning at the
stake.

so again I was correct, the Inquisition didn't execute people that was left to the state.

You are funny! What's the Inquisition? A group of cardinals presiding over the ruling and passing judgement that so so person has been found guilty of heresy and should be punished. If they handed over the killings to the state, what's the difference? How can a state interfere in Christian faith if it has not befome part of the church, and this is something you continued to deny that Emperor Constantine did not make Roman Catholic a state religion, on this you defended yourself with "civil unrest"! For instance in the case of Galileo, who believed in heliocentric theory, he was still termed a heretic and was put into house arrest till his death. How did he cause civil unrest with his scientific knowledge?

This is a case of Giordano Bruno from wiki


Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy
by the Roman Inquisition on charges of
denial of several core Catholic doctrines,
including eternal damnation , the Trinity ,
the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary,
and transubstantiation . Bruno's pantheism
was also a matter of grave concern, [4] as
was his teaching of the transmigration of
the soul ( reincarnation ). The Inquisition
found him guilty, and he was burned at
the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in
1600. After his death, he gained
considerable fame, being particularly
celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century
commentators who regarded him as a
martyr for science , [5] although historians
have debated the extent to which his
heresy trial was a response to his
astronomical views or to other aspects of
his philosophy and theology. [6][7][8][9][10]
Bruno's case is still considered a landmark
in the history of free thought and the
emerging sciences.[11][12][13]



Cornelio Da Montalcino was a Franciscan
friar who had embraced Judaism , and was
burned alive on the Campo dei Fiori in
Rome , Italy , in 1554.



This is the case of Jacob Palaeologus


Jacob Palaeologus, born Giacomo da Chio
(c. 1520 – March 23, 1585) was a Dominican
friar who renounced his religious vows and
became an antitrinitarian theologian. An
indefatigable polemicist against both
Calvinism and Papal Power , Palaeologus
cultivated a wide range of high-placed
contacts and correspondents in the
imperial, royal, and aristocratic households
in Eastern Europe and the Ottoman
Empire ; [1] while formulating and
propagating a radically heterodox version of
Christianity, in which Jesus Christ was not
to be invoked in worship, and where
purported irreconcilable differences
between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism
were rejected as spurious fabrications. He
was continually pursued by his many
enemies, repeatedly escaping through his
many covert supporters.
Palaeologus played an active role in the
high politics of European religion and
diplomacy over a period of twenty years
before he lost imperial favour; and having
been extradited to the Papal States , was
executed for heresy by the Roman
Inquisition .


This is the case of Aonio Paleario

In 1542 the Inquisition made his tract Della
Pienezza, sufficienza, et satisfazione della
passione di Christo , or Libellus de morte
Christi (The Benefit of Christ's Death), the
basis of a charge of heresy, from which,
however, he successfully defended himself.
In Siena he wrote his Actio in pontifices
romanos et eorum asseclas , a vigorous
indictment, in twenty testimonia, against
what he now believed to be the
fundamental error of the Roman Church in
subordinating Scripture to tradition, as well
as against various particular doctrines,
such as that of purgatory; it was not,
however, printed until after his death
(Leipzig, 1606). [2]
In 1546 he accepted a professorial chair at
Lucca, which he exchanged in 1555 for that
of Greek and Latin literature at Milan .
Here about 1566 his enemies renewed their
activity, and in 1567 he was formally
accused by Fra Angelo , the inquisitor of
Milan. He was tried at Rome, condemned
to death in October 1569, and executed in
July 1570. [2]

This is the case of Domenico Scandella


Domenico Scandella (1532–1599), also
known as Menocchio, was a miller from
Montereale , Italy , who in the 16th century
was tried by the Inquisition for his
unorthodox religious views, and burnt at
the stake for heresy in 1599. His life and
beliefs are known from the Inquisition
records, and has been the subject of the
book The Cheese and the Worms by Carlo
Ginzburg .[1][2][3][4]
Biography
His parents were Zuane and Menega. He
lived most of his life in Montereale, except
for two years when he was banished from
the town for brawling.
He had learned to read and read a number
of contemporary works on religion and
history. From these, he developed his
religious views that departed substantially
from Catholic orthodoxy of the time.
He was first tried for heresy in 1583, and
abjured his statements in 1584, but spent
another 20 months in prison in Concordia.
Released in 1586, he claimed to have
reformed. He continued to be in house
arrest and had to wear a sign of a burning
cross on his garments as a visible sign of
his crimes. In 1598, he was arrested again
as a lapsed heretic , having continued to
propagate his beliefs. In 1599, he was
declared a heresiarch and was executed by
burning.
During his trial, he argued that the only sin
was to harm one's neighbor and that to
blaspheme caused no harm to anyone but
the blasphemer. He went so far as to say
that Jesus was born of man and Mary was
not a virgin, that the Pope had no power
given to him from God but simply
exemplified the qualities of a good man,
and that Christ had not died to "redeem
humanity ".[5]


This is the case of Pomponio Algerio


Pomponio Algerio (1531 – 22 August 1556)
was an Italian religious martyr.
Algerio was born in Nola, and was a civil
law student at the University of Padua ,
where his Lutheran theological beliefs
attracted the attention of the Roman
Inquisition . [1] At his trial, he wore his
academic hat and gown to remind the
tribunal that, as a student, he had the right
to freely express his ideas. From the
transcript of Pomponio Algerio at his trial:
"I say that the Church deviates from the
truth in so far as it says that a man
could not do anything in any way good
on his own, since nothing praiseworthy
can proceed from our corrupt infected
nature except to the extent that the lord
God gives us his grace... the Roman
Catholic Church is a particular Church
and no Christian should restrict himself
to any particular Church. This Church
deviates in many things from truth."
After refusing to conform to Church
doctrine, he was sentenced to prison and
asked to reconsider his Lutheran beliefs.
After a year behind bars, he still refused to
reconsider. Because Venetian authorities
would not consent to an execution, Pope
Paul IV sent officials to extradite Pomponio
to Rome. In Rome, on 21 August 1555, a
monk from the brotherhood of St John the
Beheaded visited Pomponio in his cell
urging him to repent. If he repented, he
would be strangled before burning. The 24-
year-old student refused.
One year later, on 22 August 1556, he was
executed by civil authorities in the Piazza
Navona, Rome . Maintaining his composure
while he was boiled in oil, he stayed alive
for 15 minutes before dying.


These are just the most outstanding figures who fell victim of the Roman Inquisition, of course there are other thousands if not million cases . Even though I don't side with them on all their views, my message is clear: They were killed by the Roman Inquisition not because they caused civil unrest but because they held different views from that of the Roman Catholic Church.