Culdees

  • Thread starter Thread starter montanaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

montanaman

Guest
I was perusing a Protestant site about where the Bible came from and I came across this. Ironically, I was hit with it a couple of days ago at the PW forum. Anyone ever hear of this conspiracy theory?
Where was the true church of God during these Dark Ages?

On the Scottish Island of Iona, in 563 AD, a man named Columba started a Bible College. For the next 700 years, this was the source of much of the non-Catholic, evangelical Bible teaching through those centuries of the Dark and Middle Ages. The students of this college were called “Culdees”, which means “certain stranger”. The Culdees were a secret society, and the remnant of the true Christian faith was kept alive by these men during the many centuries that led up to the Protestant Reformation.

In fact, the first man to be called a “Culdee” was Joseph of Aremethia. The Bible tells us that Joseph of Aremethia gave up his tomb for Jesus. Tradition tells us that he was actually the Uncle of the Virgin Mary, and therefore the Great-Uncle (or “half-Uncle” at least) of Jesus. It is also believed that Joseph of Aremethia traveled to the British Isles shortly after the resurrection of Christ, and built the first Christian Church above ground there. Tradition also tells us that Jesus may have spent much of his young adult life (between 13 and 30) traveling the world with his Great Uncle Joseph… though the Bible is silent on these years in the life of Jesus.

In the late 1300’s, the secret society of Culdees chose John Wycliffe to lead the world out of the Dark Ages. Wycliffe has been called the “Morning Star of the Reformation”. That Protestant Reformation was about one thing: getting the Word of God back into the hands of the masses in their own native language, so that the corrupt church would be exposed and the message of salvation in Christ alone, by scripture alone, through faith alone would be proclaimed again.

This concludes our overview of the Pre-Reformation history of the Bible. You should now click here to return to the main English Bible History Page, to pick up this story with John Wycliffe in the 14th Century, and continue on to the 21st Century.
 
Interesting. Do they have any proof whatsoever? It’s very telling that they talk about salvation “through the Bible alone”, yet they have to justify everything here with what “tradition tells us.” And they yell at us about traditions? At least we have historical proof. Kinda funny and ironic when you think about it.
 
40.png
PhilNeri:
Interesting. Do they have any proof whatsoever? It’s very telling that they talk about salvation “through the Bible alone”, yet they have to justify everything here with what “tradition tells us.” And they yell at us about traditions? At least we have historical proof. Kinda funny and ironic when you think about it.
Click to expand...
My favorite part of that (aside from the unsupported assertion about the “secret society”) was their definition of what’s important–Christ ALONE, Bible ALONE, faith ALONE. Methinks they don’t know what “alone” means.

On that conspiracy theory, I’m going back to look. Here’s what I found. Maybe I can dig up some more on the mythical “Culdees.” My guess is these people who will immediately accept a secret society of pre-Reformation Evangelicals mercilessly hammer the Mormons… :rolleyes:
 
Sounds like that have taken their idea of “history” from the Mormons!
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
Here’s a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on “Culdees”

newadvent.org/cathen/04563b.htm

It was an interesting “read” and I thought the curious here might want to check it out.
Click to expand...
I just skimmed it. It looks like the Protestant website, along with an oppenent I had a couple of days ago, both use a tactic I’ve run into countless times–wherever there’s scant evidence to prove something one way or the other, they argue as though the Protestant side is proven. As in a recent “Was St. Patrick Catholic?” debate I had with a truly disturbed individual, there was some debate about the accuracy of the dates Patrick was in Ireland. While this is certainly a “curiosity,” it hardly proved the Protestant position. I won’t go into the whole pathetic thing, but basically the radical I was debating found a source that called into question the actual dates of his arrival. If those dates were correct, then there might have been some weight to his anti-Patrick-Catholic position. However, I found sources that had dates that “worked.”

But that doesn’t matter to the serious anti-Catholic. Once they find something that COULD work, it DOES work. Rule of thumb for anti-Catholics–historical oddities or questions always work in favor of the Protestant position.

(It’s things like this that make me want to throw in the towel and wish 'em “good luck.” On another note, my Protestant girlfriend recently told me she’d like to take some “Catechism classes” to find out once and for all if I’m full of it, or if there’s some truth to all this apologetical jabbering I’ve been doing…)
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
Protestant! No, no, no… It’s New Advent - they’re Catholics! Honest! Here’s their home page: newadvent.org/
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know. I was referring to the OTHER website. I just wrote that lazily…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top