Talk:Bosnian Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Bogomil connection

We could use a bit of an elaboration here regarding the connection with Bogomils. Franjo Rački wrote about this in the 19th century... --Joy [shallot] 10:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well who cares about Franjo R, what makes his story the correct one, he is not oficially accepted in terms of history.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.209.173.153 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 October 2005.

Please, do tell us the sources for your correct and officially accepted in terms of history version. --Joy [shallot] 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniaks

The text is very incorrect, it doesn't mention Bosniaks and their Bogumil heritage, the Bosnian church was a church made out only by Bosniaks and the curch was Bogumil...The bosnian church does not have anything to do with serbs or croats.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.209.174.196 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 September 2005.

Um, where do you get that information? I certainly couldn't corroborate anything like that based on google. --Joy [shallot] 16:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Obviously whoever posted this keeps editing the article, as I continue to see "thus being the ancestors of modern Bosniaks" popping up. No one can prove 100% that Bosnian Krstjani converted en masse to Islam; as a matter of fact, many scholars think that the Bosnian Church had largely disappeared before the Turkish conquest. The country had Catholicized to a great extent, with some Orthodox Serbs (or "Vlachs") prevailing in eastern areas like Podrinje and Herzegovina. The modern Bosniaks are an amalgam of regional Slavic elements, mostly originating from Bosnia but also surrounding areas like Sandžak.
That's as far as we can positively say without reflecting any bias, whether pro-Croatian (Bosniaks are Islamicized Croats), pro-Serbian (Bosniaks are Islamicized Serbs), or pro-Bosniak (Bosniaks descend from Bogumils who converted en masse to Islam). All of the aforementioned theories are supported by a certain degree of evidence (although I personally consider all three flawed and misleading), but we must maintain neutrality on Wikipedia. Of course, this doesn't relate directly to the Church itself, but belongs on the Wikipedia page about Bosniaks.--66.235.54.154 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bogomil

Can anyone give some sources to this linking between the Bosnian Church and Bosniaks? HolyRomanEmperor 13:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll gladly give you a linking; the bosnian church disappeared during the ottoman era. Why? the answer is simple: people converted to Islam (bosniaks), and therefore the destiny of the bosnian "church" was dissapearanc. Usual signs of the bosnian "church" are the so called "stecci" tombstones, which are of bogomil charcteristics. Damir Mišić 13:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I heard about "reasons for reverting", and you'll see that links bogomils were erased several times in the history. There are certain links, but as no one has cited any sources the info was erased. Quote from bogomils:
The Bogomils spread westwards, and settled first in Serbia; but at the end of the 12th century Stephen Nemanya, king of Serbia, persecuted them and expelled them from the country. Large numbers took refuge in Bosnia, where they were known under the name of Patarenes or Patareni. There they were also brought into connection with the indigenous Bosnian Church, which was also considered heretical by the Pope and the Byzantium, but was not actually Bogomil in nature.
The links with Bosniaks are at least partially a myth, and you clearly demonstrated the tendence to do the original research on wikipedia, contrary to WP:NOR. I'll be glad to support bogomil and bosniak links myself if you offer any proof, in the sense of valid historical paper on the subject rather than your explanations. Duja 09:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bogomil resolved "controversy"

Quite a few users try to present Bosnian Christians as a dualist-manichaean sect connected with Macedonian-Bulgarian Bogomils. This view has been discarded: those who can read English and B/C/S can see for themselves:

Unfortunately, those few users have previously demonstrated thet they don't even accept existence of the facts that do not favor their point of view... Duja 12:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are ridiculous, sorry but they are nothing but nationalistic fantasies coming true on poorly created private homepages on the net. And these facts on bogomil heritage are accepted mainstream facts, ever read John Fine, Noel Malcolm and other prominent historians in the field which claim the bogomil heritage? And you've even written that they don't go for the bogomil version? unbelievable Damir Mišić

User Mišić, evidently, has not read about the topic he wants to discuss (or does not bother to hear other, I'd say more informed, people's views). Otherwise, he wouldn't have made such serious misinterpretations. Historians John Fine (it's his text on external links portion at the article page) and Noel Malcolm contend that: 1) Bosnian Christians had had nothing to do either with Bulgarian-Macedonian Bogomils , or with Patarens from Northern Italy and Southern France 2) they had disappeared a decade or two before the Ottoman invasion, so that Turkish defters know about only 100 or so krstjani (as different from Catholic and Orthodox qafir) 3) this interpretation, which has become widely accepted over years, has been much elaborated by Fine, based on works of Leo Petrović, Maja Miletić, Dragoljub Dragojlović and Jaroslav Šidak 4) sources I've given as links, especially from the Sarajevo Institut za istoriju are from the most prominent authorities in the field of research (Dubravko Lovrenović, Pejo Ćošković, Mladen Ančić,..) 5) I don't understand the rhetoric about "nationalists" (probably "nationalist (Croat and Serb) historians"). I guess that, according to this view, anyone who denies supposedly gnostic and extremely heretic nature of the medieval Bosnian Church, is, somehow, politically motivated to deny Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) "ethnic continuity" with pre-Ottoman Bosnian Christians. This is, I've heard, a standard myth in Bosniak ideological circels. Just, this view neglects unpleasant facts: proponents of the ideology of "Bogomil heresy" are either moderate historians who did not misuse their scientific integrity (Franjo Rački, Sima Ćirković), or indeed are nationalist, but Croatian (Miroslav Brandt, Dominik Mandić, Franjo Šanjek, Ivo Pilar..), for whom "Bosnian Church" is nothing but regional Croatian Church. There is no authority among researchers in the field of medieval Bosnian studies, either pro-Bogomil, or pro-"orthodox (not eastern Orthodox)-and-isolated" paradigmata, who would make any link between this historical phenomenon and contemporary Bosnian Muslim ethnicity.Bardon Dornal 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
geocities? you serious? visit noel malcolms institute: http://www.bosnia.org.uk/about/default.cfm Haven't seen you provide a single source on your claims about Fine's and Malcolm's theories. Damir Mišić
Damir, have you even read Fine or Malcolm? They contend quite the opposite. Ivan Ilir

[edit] Number of followers

How many followers did the Bosnian Church have? The numbers can be a great answer to things.

No one knows, since their number had been toyed with in order to promote various political agenda. There is a weak consensus they never constitued the majority. Contemporary Bosniak scholars like Mehmadalija Bojić contend that BC followers constitituted ca. 60% of the 1300-1400s Bosnia and Hum population. This is, as far as I know, the highest percentage put forward to date. Mir Harven 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

Dammit people, we can quarrel all we want, but not too much is actually known about the Church, and even less about its supposed connections with Islamic conversion. In any case, the Google book search gives some useful results. Here are a few interesting excerpts, so if anyone wants to dig it further, it would be appreciated:

"Being Muslim the Bosnian way: Identity and community in a central Bosnian village - Page 15" by Tone Bringa, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691001758: [1]

"Islam and Bosnia: Conflict Resolution and Foreign Policy in Multi-ethnic States - Page 5" by Maya Shatzmiller, 2003 McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, ISBN 0773512772 [2]

Duja► 13:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The History-Section is full of weasel phrases and speculations. --Noirceuil 19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics section also needs work. Denial of the Christian cross and trinity seems overly speculative; I've read John Fine, Noel Malcolm and a host of other scholars, none of whom mention these as Krstjani beliefs or characteristics. Most scholarship at least grudgingly admits that Bosnian Church belief, judging from official church writings and so forth, did not differ significantly from mainstream Christianity. The Bogumili of Bulgaria hated John the Baptist, disdained the Christian cross and denied the trinity, having professed legitimately Gnostic or Manichaean beliefs, however one cannot say that about the Bosnian Church without citing a good reference. Again, I don't know of any. Ivan Ilir

The article is just fine in its current state. I agree that it should be more thoroughly cited, but it is certainly not POV in any case. A lot of the facts speak for themselves; 1. As the turks arrived and the number of muslim adherents increased the krstjani shrunk. 2. The traits which the bogomil belief had in bulgaria was only even more strenghtened in bosnia when it arrived there, because of the relative religious freedom that was present in Bosnia, mostly because of its rather unpleasnt terrain. So once again, I will revert, because, as much as I can agree in that the article should be more cited, it is not POV. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Sources, please?? I haven't read any historical books which mention these "facts". When did the Bogomils "arrive" in Bosnia?
The so-called "heretical" Bosnian Church itself grew out of the Bosnian Catholic diocese. The only verifiable "facts" about the church are thus: pressures from neighboring countries (namely Hungary) and weak communication with religious authorities outside (this is attributable to geography) caused the church in Bosnia to break away into schism. Since the vast majority of medieval Bosnians could not understand Latin, the church's use of Old Church Slavonic may very well have reflected a "protest" against Rome similar to what Gregory of Nin had tried to achieve in Croatia during the 10th century. Nin, much like medieval Bosnia, was home to an autonomous "Croatian" church that vigorously opposed the Latin liturgy. Finally, the church's withdrawn monastic structure and minor government role indicates that it was far from a "state" institution, functioning more on private terms with individual adherents and families. If we really must attach labels to the Bosnian Church besides "schismatic", "protestant" would fit much more appropriately than "heretical".
As far as what beliefs the church professed, most scholars, including Noel Malcolm (whose name you seem to have omitted from the "Bosnian Church Scholarship" section) have at least grudgingly admitted that "Bogumil" influence appears relatively absent from any Krstjani documents themselves. Papal documents claim wild stuff about heresy, sure enough, but no church official has ever corroborated these claims.
The Bosnian kingdom had gone nominally Catholic after its rulers declared allegiance to the Pope on numerous occasions, first under Ban Kulin (read about the Bilino Polje abjuration) and finally under King Stjepan Tomasevic, less than a century before the Turkish conquest. During these periods, the Franciscans conducted vigorous proselytizing efforts throughout the Bosnian region, strengthening the Catholic presence even more until Islam arrived. As a result, it's highly unlikely that a widespread Bosnian Church existed to facillitate mass conversions during the 15th century. Rather, all three religious denominations contributed to the Bosniak ethnogenesis, including the few hundred or so remaining Krstjani.
To prove that I did not invent any of this, the Slovene monk Benedikt Kuripesic described the religious situation in Bosnia after his journey through the Balkans during the early 1500s. His writings mention "the old Bosnians... who are of the Roman Catholic faith," followed by "the Serbs, who are called Vlachs" and lastly "the Turks... who rule tyrannically over the Christian subjects" (I have taken these quotes directly from Malcolm's "Bosnia: A Short History").
Here, the term "Turks" doesn't apply to Muslim converts, but rather Ottoman military officials and administrators who have just taken control of the Bosnian state apparatus. As a priest whose primary allegiance lay with Rome, Kuripesic would have certainly mentioned a fourth heretical contingent if Krstjani still existed. Obviously they did not, and as as demographic shifts would later show, Muslim (Bosniak) numbers only started to significantly increase after this period, from the 1600s onwards, until they comprised about 80% of Bosnia's population towards the 1800s. Thus very little evidence exists to confirm the supposed Bosniak "Bogumil" connection. --Ivan Ilir 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what it is you are trying to come through with, and I respect that, but I do not accept some parts of it. Once again, the article in its current shape describes the main stream theory/view of the Bosnian church - what you have written above is not mainstream, but rather individually based oppinions and interpretations of a few medieval documents, and so this cannot be given any greater importance in this context. However, wikipedia never discloses single non-main-stream theories, instead it is encouraged that the editors bring their own thoughts - but these thoughts cannot then be placed in the discriptive part of the article. So I suggest, that if you want to enter your oppinions above you should do so in a new subsection which you might call, let's say, simply "controversies" or "discussion/various theories". I am puzzled when you state that you've read noel's books because much of the fact you give are not Mr. Noel's own oppinions. If you pay a visit to Noel's bosnian institute on the web you will see for yourself that Noel upholds the bogomil characther of the church. And I get even more puzzled when you write that you doubt a bosniak connection with the church, which in fact has always been historically associated with the Bosniaks and more importantly their conversion to Islam. It should be noted that no one really knows when the bosnian church disappeared, it could have been as early as in the 1500s or as late as in the 1600s; Ottoman demographics didn't make any difference between christians, for them bogomils, catholics and orthodoxs were all the same. But the last Bosnian church documents showed up somewhere in the period when Islam was begining to seriously increase. I however agree that it is appropriate to call the bosnian church "protestantic", heretic was just a term that was used by the vatican in a degrogatory sense (not a term that I support nor use), the bosnian church was in deed the source from which the protestantism spread to western europe. To change line; it is an severe anachronism to make a connection with either serbia or croatia and the bosnian church, because the serbs and croats in Bosnia only developed their national serbian/croatian consciousness in the late 19th century. It is true that the "croats" and "serbs" in bosnia also belonged to this church, that is until they converted to main-stream christianity. There are records in the vatican which tell of christian raides to bosnia with the goal of converting the HERETIC bosnians, and they succedeed; in one day over 5.000 heretics (e.g Bogomils) were converted to catholic christianity (today's bosnian "croats"). The heretics which the vatican and orthodox church failed to convert remained in the church until the arrival of the turks, and converted only then to Islam (the Bosniaks). So it is true that all three gropus in Bosnia have connection to the church, but you have to remember that bosnian orthodoxs and catholics didn't recognize themselves as croat or serb at that time - they were Bosnjani. So what has happened in Bosnia is the spliting of the same people (Bosnjani) into three groups based on religion - and in the course of events the bosniaks turned out to be the only ones who remained in a Bosnian ethnic conciousness. You wrote that there weren't many krstjani left in the in the 15 th century, this is false - records of the amount of krstjani was never held so one could not know surely the extent of them. But most likely the bosnian church continued to exist as an underground movement where many of its adherents confessed to catholicism/orthodoxism in the eyes of these churces but yet never really did so. Kulin Ban, for example, confessed to catholicism but continued to support bogomils (as he himseld called them). Katarina Kosaca Kotromanic was reported with "heretic beliefs", her support for rome was merely an attempt to prevent as what she saw at that time as a destructive ottoman occupation of bosnia. The Bosnian church was an influencial part of Bosnia even until the 1600s, it is first then that its traces really began to disappear. Your statement of a few hundred adherents is nonreliable considering the amount of krsjtanian documents that circulated bosnia until mid 1600s, let's say a couple of tens of thousands instead, partly because only one in 3.000-5.000 or so could even write at that time to produce the highly litterate documents which originated within the bosnian church. I suggest you read more sources than just Noel's, who by the way is simply a journalist - not a historian if I recall correctly. Ancient Land of Bosoni


I just found this on Noel Malcolm's web page for his "Bosnian Institute": "the Bosnian Church (with its supposedly Bogomil beliefs), ". Now, supposedly means most likely, which means that he (or at least the institute which he holds) does not disclose the church as bogomil. Ancient Land of Bosoni
To begin with, you obviously haven't read Mr. Malcolm's book "Bosnia: A Short History", so you can't base your argument on a single quote from a website. Please take the time to visit your local library and read the book before you assume something about Mr. Malcolm's views. I've read it twice, as well as Balkan historian John Fine's groundbreaking work "The Bosnian Church", the original 400-page volume upon which Malcolm based his assertions. Needless to say, Fine shatters the so-called "Bogumil" myth to pieces, and most of what I've mentioned here I drew from him.
That said, supposedly doesn't mean likely -- as a matter of fact, it often means quite the opposite. Purportedly; regarded or accepted as true, without positive knowledge (i.e., supposed gains). To say one supposedly believed something hardly means they likely believed it. "Likely" implies a degree of certainty, while "supposedly" implies the opposite.
And once again you were wrong my friend, I checked the definition of supposedly in two dictionaries, this is what I got:

1. "Believed or reputed to be the case" (Supposedly bogomil, OR believed or reputed to be bogomil) 2. "Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence." (Supposedly bogomil, OR presumed to be bogomil (without conclusive evidence, but yet presumed!) Ancient Land of Bosoni


How would you define "mainstream" Bosnian Church views, anyway? As far as I know, mainstream Bosnian Church scholarship remains divided along two camps. Modern historians like Malcolm have increasingly sided with Fine and others, while the "pro-Bogumil" side has mainly enjoyed support among older, Yugoslav-era historians like Franjo Racki, Sima Cirkovic, Dominik Mandic, etc., who worked with limited data and often produced flawed analyses. User Bardon Dornal explained it a lot better than me; scroll up and reply to his take on the issue if you like.--Ivan Ilir 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to not confuse you (which I perhaps did) I want you to understand what it is exactly I mean by "krstjanian documents" - I suppose you are familiar with the Bosnian cyrillic, this script arose within the bosnian church, so any trace of this script on bosnian sole is a direct evidence of the existence of bosnian church adherents, because it was native and exclusive to them (in Bosnia). And even though few religious documents from the bosnian church are found in late 16th century other non-religious contemporary documents written in bosnian cyrillic were nevertheless much more common; one should concentrate on the extent of bosnian cyrillic documents during this period rather than on the religious or nonreligious trait of the documents. In addition, there are even several religious documents left behind the bosnian church, in the form of steccis (tombs). They have common bogomil charactheristics very similiar to tombs found in Bulgaria, and most notably; not even barely a single one of them have any carved crosses, it speaks for itself. What does this have to do with resources?, we are talking about investigating a religious dominion, not digging up the pharaos grave or discovering atlantis on the bottom of a sea. All facts all allready presented, the steccis are discovered, the bosnian cyrillic letters are preserved - the last step depends on how the author inteprets these facts and perhaps even which political agenda he/she has. To me it is obvious that we are bogomils, and that you too are if you're a so called bosnian "Croat", and I doubt there is any split "scholarship" in the matter. The fact is that half of the croats support serb nationalist interpretations while the other half support the true bogomil nature of the church. To get off the record; bosnians don't need John Fine to come and learn them their own history, as long as Fine "shatters" he is not neutral, to shatter something this obvious either demands zero brain, hatred towards muslims or accepting a bride from the serbs. Conclusion: The Bosnian church is Bogomil, the ancestors of the bosniaks stayed true to the church the longest while catholics and orthodox christians in bosnia are a result of early abandonment of this indigenous church. When Islam came, it was easy for the Krsjtani to accept it since it had many resemblences with bogomilism. Also catholics and orthodox chritians converted to Islam, but only to a certain extent - catholics mostly to ortodoxism since this form of chritstianity was favored over catholicism, many catholics also fled to croatia. Orthodoxs converted to Islam but not in any larger figures since they make up a large proportion of the population in bosnia today, although many of them came from serbia as labour for the turks, but orthodox church records show however few losses of adherents. So the Bosnian church (which doesn't exist at all today) was replaced by mosques (which don't accept the cross either). P.S I read the debates above, that's how I found out about the bosnian institute. And no I haven't read Malcolm's book, but I have always considered him pro-bosnian...perhaps I shouldn't. Thank you! Ancient Land of Bosoni

And once again you were wrong my friend, I checked the definition of supposedly in two dictionaries, this is what I got: 1. "Believed or reputed to be the case" (Supposedly bogomil, OR believed or reputed to be bogomil) 2. "Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence." (Supposedly bogomil, OR presumed to be bogomil (without conclusive evidence, but yet presumed!) Ancient Land of Bosoni

[edit] Bosnian Church was NOT Bogomil

I must say that the characterisation of the Bosnian Church as Bogomil is obsolete, are we ever gonna get rid of this shibboleth? It has been persuasively shown (Fine, Malcolm, etc.) that the Bosnian Church rose out of the Catholic Church (Bosnia had always been at least nominally Catholic after all,) and that it was merely schismatic/protestant and not heretical.. It has in fact nothing to do with Bogomilism. Now, we could write in the article that some dualist sect seems to have operated in Bosnia but this was a minor phenomenon that has been confused with the fairly orthodox (not to be confused with Orthodox), that is non-heretical, Bosnian Church.

Now, I am a Bosniak, but this Bosnian Muslim devotion to a Bogomil-theory, is not only ahistorical, it is pointless. The Bosnian Church had returned to the Catholic fold by the middle of the 15th century. Why our Catholic ancestry (mostly, for some Serbian, Hungarian (etc) muslims did immigrate later) should be less desirable than Bogomil is beyond me. That is, the Bosniak descent from (at least formal) Catholicism does not make them less Bosniak, nor does Catholicism make those medieval Bosnians less Bosnian. --Byronic[] 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you mentioned two whole sources, Fine and Malcom, two amateurs who aren't even specialized in Bosnia (and the second one of the two simply copied the first one's work without ever investigating the matter himself). If every amateuristic oppinion there is would be listened to, well then we could as well write that marsemen secretly enlarged the brain of einstein. The Bosnian church has NO so-called "catholic ancestry" (ludacris!), this cannot be written in the article in any way (perhaps in the discussion part, and then as "a controversial theory"). Totally unacceptable otherwise. I have more experience in this field than either Malcolm or Fine does, who are frankly not as reliable as one might believe, in my oppinion. It is apparent that are not very familiar with this subject, "serbian muslims"? - serbian conciousness didn't even exist in Bosnia prior to the 1800s. Read and comment, in that order that is. Ancient Land of Bosoni

John Fine an amateur? He is a specialist in Balkan Medieval History, and as I said, his arguments are persuasive. Are you denying that Bosnia was Catholic before the Bosnian Church appeared? Tell me, what was the Bilino Polje (1203) renunciation about? A (at least official) return to Catholicism, or do you deny that? Bosnia was under Catholic religious jurisdiction and operation (the Bosnian diocese; the Vicariate). The Serbian muslims I was referring to I meant in a geographical/genetic sense, as for instance those Serbian converts to Islam who settled in Bosnia and mixed with the Bosnian muslims subsequently. For example, the town of Bosanski Samac was settled by Muslims from Serbia in the 1860s. But this is a minor influx. Anyway, of course, it seems that we (Bosnians) were never very orthodox in our beliefs and in medieval times, various beliefs, pagan, dualist etc, were tolerated and flourished, but clearly Bosnia belonged to the 'western' Christian sphere, so that the Bosnian border with Serbia was also the border between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all or even many Bosnians were hardline catholics. By the way, your kneejerk description of me as 'not very familiar' with this is peculiar, particularly coming from someone who didn't even live in Bosnia. Anyway, the religious history of Bosnia is clear enough at least in broad outlines, this old rehashing of 19th century Bogomil historiography is political, obsolete and undiscerning. --Byronic[] 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Check this out:

  'In respect to its theology, the Church had some traits that were strongly divided from Catholic 
   and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the two most important of these being the denial 
   of trinity and the Christian cross as a religious symbol; something significative for the 
   "heretical" Bogomil beliefs.'

This is not tolerable. These are precisely some of the main myths demolished by Fine's studies. We should not let these blatant falsehoods be propagated here. Both the cross and the Trinity were perfectly acceptable concepts to the Bosnian Church.--Byronic 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Byronic. If Ancient Land of Bosoni wants any further proof, I can also quote a certain stechak inscription from the 14th century which directly invokes the Trinity. Furthermore, quite a few of the stecci I've seen feature Christian crosses, so one cannot attribute these to the supposedly "Bogumil" church either. And here supposedly does mean not likely. --Ivan Ilir 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's more proof, if anybody is reading. A stechak inscription reads as follows,
"V ime Oca i Sina i Svetago duha amin. Se leži Viganj Milošević. Služi banu Stipanu i kralju Tvrtku i kralju Dabiši i kraljici Grubi i kralju Ostoji. I u to vrime dojde i svadi se Ostoja kralj se hercegom i z Bosnom i na Ugre poje Ostoja. To vrime mene Vignja dojde končina na svom plemenitom pod Kočerinom i molju vas, ne nastupajte na me. Ja sam bil kako vi jeste, vi ćete biti kako jesam ja."
Yet another inscription reads,
"V ime Oca i Sina i Svetago duha amin. Se je kami Radojica Bilića. Milostiju božijom i pomoćiju roda moga izidah mnogočasnu grobnicu i postavih si kamen na grobnici mojej i ugotovih si vični dom za života svojega, ako hoće gospodin Bog, sebi i drugu mojemu. Molju bratiju i strine i neviste: pristupite i žalite me i ne popirajte me nogama, jere ćete biti vi kakov jesam ja, a ja neću biti kakovi jeste vi. [A se] pisa Veseoko Kukulamović."
Just two examples of these supposedly anti-Trinitarian, Gnostic Bogumil artifacts. Why do the inscriptions invoke the Trinity?--66.235.54.154 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I think it's time to revise the article in the light of these facts, and let Wikipedia be a part of the dismantling of these Bogomil myths so boldly propagated by dubious scholarship. --Byronic 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article must represent all points of view

User "Ancient land of Bosoni" is obviously editting the article to push his particular view on the subject, which is unacceptable. The article must represent all views, not simply those which fit a particular agenda.--Ivan Ilir 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)