Baptism... And the True Church

[Eden]

Eden,

OK, which is it? Is the New Testament based on the Textus Receptus, or was it based on Tyndales translation? Tyndale translated the Bible from the Greek to the English.

It’s both.

Tyndale used the Textus Receptus to translate from the Greek into English for his bible. 80% of the KJV is a direct translation from Tyndale’s translation of the Textus Receptus into English.

Bibleapologist:

And the KJV translators also had the texts in the original biblical languages.

Firstly, there is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with Erasmus’ text.

Erasmus made the Textus Receptus by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later.

In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible (the Vulgate).

I found this at a Sola Scriptura website:

“Even at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Greek text used in preparing the King James Bible was the Textus Receptus. We should be grateful to God for providing a competent Greek text from which these heroes of the faith could translate the Word of God.”

(I included this website’s quote because it is ironic that the Textus Receptus of which it speaks, was compiled by the Catholic Erasmus and was dedicated to Pope Leo X. )

solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0032.html

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

So, Anabaptists and Baptists are break-away sects from the Catholic Church. Is that what you were trying to illustrate, Bibleapologist? If so, you are preaching to the choir. I’ve said Baptists are Protestants all along.

You know that is not what I am saying…

1. Vale Olchan - Or “the olchan” were “baptists” who claimed descent from the Apostles (not Apostolic succession) but that they could trace their teaching (not authority) to the Apostles. During the reformation they were identical to baptists in distinctive, but no one knows how long they were practicing their beliefs in the “Vale Olchan”.
2. Bohemians of the Hercynian Forest - In 1519 (six years before Luther appeared before the Diet of Worms, a letter was addressed to Erasmus from Bohemia concerning these people… "They own nothing of the sacracments of the church… theybelieve nothing of divinity of the Eucharist…Such as come over to their sect, must every one be baptized anew in mere water…
3. Balthasar Hubmaier - “Originally a Catholic, a priest, then a Protestant follower of Zwingli, before splitting off again into a new sect”… Yes, but you failed to recognize that he left fellowship with Zwingli when Zwingli changed his convictions concerning infant baptism, Hubmaier didn’t… He was eventually imprisoned with anabaptists; Grebel, Manz, and Baurock… He baptized over 12,000 new converts by immersion in 3 years!
4. Menno Simons: Was originally a Catholic, being ordained as a priest in 1524 - He later joined the Obbenite group (anabaptist) where he was baptized as a believer.
5. The Vaudois: “the people of the valley”… Peter Allix says… “On baptism the Waldenses were divided, There is reason to believe that some of them practiced infant baptism… Sacco… states about the Waldenses that, “They say a man is then first baptized when he is received into the sect. Some of them hold that bapitsm is of no use to little children, because they are not yet actually able to believe”.” (Peter Allix, The Churches of the Piedmont, p. 206)
6. Felix Manz - First a Catholic, then a follower of Zwingli - Was one of the first to be Martyred in Zurich for denying the validity of Infant Baptism… Zwingli was the only one of the group who recanted his belief in believers baptism, and saved himself from persecution.
7. Joan Boucher: You said… “Another 16th century Protestant - She believed in the idea of Christ’s “celestial flesh” - that he was not “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”.” So are you saying that burning her as a heretic was justified? The point she was arguing was that “original sin” was not a valid doctrine… had Jesus taken the flesh of Mary, He would have contracted “original sin”… and the Tyndale bible she used was clear that He was without sin. The truth is, and the point she was making, was that original sin was not a biblical doctrine.

By your intent to omit these truths, you are actually lying to those who read these posts Eden.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

So, of course Luther will claim that the Bible came from the Catholics… But, as I have shown, it did not.

Where did you show that?

The KJV is 80% Tyndale’s English translation of the Catholic Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a version of the New Testament in Greek that was dedicated to Pope Leo X. As a Catholic, which Canon do you think Erasmus used? The Catholic Canon? That’s right. The Bible you are using was handed down to you from the Catholic Church (minus the books Martin Luther took out).

 

[Eden]

By your intent to omit these truths, you are actually lying to those who read these posts Eden.

All roads for Protestants (including the Baptist faiths) lead to Rome. You continue to perpetuate a myth that Baptists existed outside the Church as an underground “true church” for 1600 years but every piece of “evidence” you provide that people long ago believed as Baptists today do, winds up back at the same place of origin - the Catholic Church.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

The KJV is 80% Tyndale’s English translation of the Catholic Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a version of the New Testament in Greek that was dedicated to Pope Leo X. As a Catholic, which Canon do you think Erasmus used? The Catholic Canon? That’s right. The Bible you are using was handed down to you from the Catholic Church (minus the books Martin Luther took out).

The KJV was based on the “Bishop’s Bible” which was a version of the Geneva. The Geneva was translated from the original biblical languages. The translators of the KJV also had the bible from the original languages…

I have not read Tyndale’s English translation, but if it is 80% accurate as compared with the KJV I would say that there is a miraculous relationship between his translation and the KJV.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[jemfinch]

What basis do you have scripturally to impose justification on your children…

“Imposing” justification on them? My goodness, do you need a scriptural justification to give your kids birthday gifts?

Scripturally, we have the same basis that the friends of the paralytic had to lower their friend through the roof of the room in which Jesus was teaching. The same basis that any of several parents of deceased children in the Bible had to appeal to Jesus to raise their children from the dead. We are appealing to Christ to raise our child from spiritual death, and Jesus can and does give them that gift.

Since when was it an imposition to give a child a gift?

No, we were discussing Jacob and Esau, and I did not misread that passage.

Let’s put the entire chain of quotes into perspective, shall we?

bibleapologist:

Hebrews 7:5 doesn’t prove Rationes Seminales by substantiating that Levi existed in the loins of Abraham… that verse says that Levi came “out of the loins of Abraham”.

jemfinch:

That’s not what the Bible says. If you’re going to do exegesis, and not eisegesis, you need to be more accurate in reading what the Bible actually says. “For he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.”

bibleapologist:

I didn’t misinterpret scripture, I used an accurate version… the KJV… You said that verse stated that Levi was “in the loins of Abraham” but that is not how the verse reads… in any version I have seen.

jemfinch:

No, you did something far more fundamental. You misread Scripture.

bibleapologist:

No, we were discussing Jacob and Esau, and I did not misread that passage.

The direct quotes in all our posts substantiate this chain of conversation. It seems your reading skills are not quite up to snuff, bibleapologist: you neither read the Bible nor our conversation correctly.

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

All roads for Protestants (including the Baptist faiths) lead to Rome. You continue to perpetuate a myth that Baptists existed outside the Church as an underground “true church” for 1600 years but every piece of “evidence” you provide that people long ago believed as Baptists today do, winds up back at the same place of origin - the Catholic Church.

I never came from the Catholic Church…

Neither did the Olchan, Bohemians of the Hercynian Forest, or Joan Boucher. How can you say that “every” piece of evidence I provided winds up at the Catholic Church?

You are still looking at the Church as a physical thing. True, local churches exist as congregations of true believers, but to be a member of one of these local churches is not Christianity in itself. Just because a person came out of the Catholic Church, and was saved such as Balthasar Hubmaier, it doesn’t negate their Christianity, it only means they changed their affiliation to a congregation of like-minded Christians.

The true church is NOT a physical entity.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

Scripturally, we have the same basis that the friends of the paralytic had to lower their friend through the roof of the room in which Jesus was teaching. The same basis that any of several parents of deceased children in the Bible had to appeal to Jesus to raise their children from the dead. We are appealing to Christ to raise our child from spiritual death, and Jesus can and does give them that gift.

Since when was it an imposition to give a child a gift?

The gift of eternal life is not a gift that is to be imposed…

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk ye in him:

Infants cannot conscously recieve that gift, neither do they have the ability to fulfil Colossians 2:6.

Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

The gift of eternal life is given to those who believe, not those who were imposed upon with it.

BTW - You conveniently left out a portion of the discussion you gave the minutes to… my post #202 I quoted you then responded…

Quote:
Their spiritual death is the condemnation for their sin. And you still seem to confuse actual sin with original sin. Jacob and Esau had no actual sin, but they had original sin, just like David did: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

You are basing your interpretation of scripture on your preconceived notion of Augustine’s predestination. The Bible never says that Jacob or Esau sinned in the Garden of Eden… or that they are implicated in Adam’s sin… in fact Romans 9:11 tells us the opposite…

Lying by omission is still lying Jeremy. I admitted my mistake, but I gave a strong argument against your claim that Levi as scientifically implicated in Abrahams tithe. Why did you chose to attempt to discredit me, rather than give a rebuttal to my statements? Maybe because you can’t?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

I never came from the Catholic Church…

Your Bible and your Baptist church both have a trail backwards, but it’s not a “Trail of Blood”, it’s a trail straight back to the Catholic Church before the Reformation.

Neither did the Olchan, Bohemians of the Hercynian Forest, or Joan Boucher. How can you say that “every” piece of evidence I provided winds up at the Catholic Church?

Joan Boucher broke from the Anglican Church which broke from the Catholic Church when King Henry VIII wanted a divorce.

You are still looking at the Church as a physical thing.

It is not biblical to claim that there is not a visible Church.

True, local churches exist as congregations of true believers, but to be a member of one of these local churches is not Christianity in itself.

Jesus was not the founder of multiple, competing Christianities with contradictory teachings from one church to the next. You are not giving God enough credit to be able to create one coherent, identifiable and visible Church.

Just because a person came out of the Catholic Church, and was saved such as Balthasar Hubmaier, it doesn’t negate their Christianity, it only means they changed their affiliation to a congregation of like-minded Christians.

Members of the broken churches that resulted from the Reformation do not have a “negated” Christianity, they just do not have the fullness of the faith and, worse, they teach many errors.

The true church is NOT a physical entity.

Wrong. The visible Church is visible.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

The KJV was based on the “Bishop’s Bible” which was a version of the Geneva. The Geneva was translated from the original biblical languages. The translators of the KJV also had the bible from the original languages…

The historical record does not support your claim that the KJV was based on the “Bishop’s Bible”. King James commissioned his Bible to replace both the “Bishop’s Bible” and the “Geneva Bible” because of his great dissatisfaction with the quality of both. Most of the KJV is borrowed from Tynsdale’s Bible, which was used for its New Testament an English translation of the Textus Receptus.

I have not read Tyndale’s English translation, but if it is 80% accurate as compared with the KJV I would say that there is a miraculous relationship between his translation and the KJV.

I don’t understand this statement. It is miraculous for a copied text to be an accurate copy?

By the way, the Geneva Bible used as it’s New Testament resource, Tyndale’s latest text at that time. The “Bishop’s Bible” was a revision of the Geneva Bible. There’s just no way around it. Whichever argument you want to use, the Textus Receptus - that work compiled by the Catholic Erasmus and dedicated to Pope Leo X - is the source for the New Testament translations from Greek to English (via Tyndale) that were used to produce the KJV. Which means, of course, that the New Testament Canon used was that which was set by the Catholic Church.

As you remember, I asked about the Baptist Council that set the Baptist Canon and you could not provide an historical source of information about it because, as we both know, it never happened.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

There’s just no way around it. Whichever argument you want to use, the Textus Receptus - that work compiled by the Catholic Erasmus and dedicated to Pope Leo X - is the source for the New Testament translations from Greek to English (via Tyndale) that were used to produce the KJV. Which means, of course, that the New Testament Canon used was that which was set by the Catholic Church.

So are you saying that King James was satisfied with Tyndale’s translation? Of course not, that’s why ALL the available texts were used in the translation of the KJV. The Bishop’s Bible was a revision of the Geneva, and that was the primary source used by the translators as it was the received text during that time… and a few years after 1611, until the KJV enjoyed acceptance.

Your claim that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible by Erasmus is also not substantiated as Erasmus used several greek manuscript sources to arrive at his greek New Testament. Many of these earlier manuscripts were translated earlier than the 4th century, so it is possible that Erasmus got his translation from those Christians who were NOT Catholic. Maybe that’s why Erasmus left the monestary, and voiced a dislike for the “evils of the Catholic Church”.

As you remember, I asked about the Baptist Council that set the Baptist Canon and you could not provide an historical source of information about it because, as we both know, it never happened.

Oh yeah, because that’s how God operates through His visible Church. Why would I attempt to give you a historical record of a Baptist Council when you know very well that I am not claiming the “true church” is a visible manifestation of Christ.

See my next post concerning your plea.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

So are you saying that King James was satisfied with Tyndale’s translation? Of course not, that’s why ALL the available texts were used in the translation of the KJV. The Bishop’s Bible was a revision of the Geneva, and that was the primary source used by the translators as it was the received text during that time… and a few years after 1611, until the KJV enjoyed acceptance.

Your claim that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible by Erasmus is also not substantiated as Erasmus used several greek manuscript sources to arrive at his greek New Testament. Many of these earlier manuscripts were translated earlier than the 4th century, so it is possible that Erasmus got his translation from those Christians who were NOT Catholic.

I’ll say it again. The Greek version of the New Testament used by Tyndale and, thus by those who later revised and translated new English version, was a translation from the Hebrew into Greek created by Erasmus. Erasmus used the Catholic Canon when translating the New Testament into Greek from Hebrew. Since the three English versions of the Bible that you mentioned used Tyndale via Erasmus, the Canon used for all subsequent versions of the Bible that you mentioned was the Canon set by the Catholic Church .

Maybe that’s why Erasmus left the monestary, and voiced a dislike for the “evils of the Catholic Church”.

Erasmus remained a Catholic all his life and, as I stated before, he dedicated the Textus Receptus to Pope Leo X.

Oh yeah, because that’s how God operates through His visible Church. Why would I attempt to give you a historical record of a Baptist Council when you know very well that I am not claiming the “true church” is a visible manifestation of Christ.

And yet a visible and continuous Baptist-like church is exactly what you have tried to prove by providing examples of people who supposedly throughout history have shared “directives” with modern American Baptists from the time of the Apostles to the present.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

As I have stated before on this post, and on others… the nature of your posts do not seem to be in the interest of reaching the truth, but rather they seem to attempt to misguide the other readers from seeking the truth by reinforcing Catholic notions.

By asking questions like the final paragraph of your previous post, it is obvious that you are not seeking the truth, or truthful answers, but are drawing the debate back to Catholic preconceived notions, and persuading the reader to disregard any proofs to an alternative view.

Any further debate with you along these lines will prove to be completely fruitless, and will only enable you to continue instilling darkness in the minds of those who read these posts. Your intention seems to be to propagate lies, with no concern for proofs to the truth.

If you don’t have a desire for truth, and you know I am not going to be deceived by your alterior motives, why else would you continue to debate with me? If you want to discredit me start a thread to do it… Here is a name for it, “BA is not credible”, and post your deception there.

Otherwise…Do you have an argument concerning baptism? Do you have a repudiation for what I have posted in # 228?

You were wrong about the existence of the Peshito in the 2nd century… You were wrong about all Anabaptists being breakaway sects of the Catholic Church… and your wrong about the Catholic Church giving us our Bible…

Now, let’s talk about Baptism… unless you don’t have anything else to say.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

And yet a visible and continuous Baptist-like church is exactly what you have tried to prove by providing examples of people who supposedly throughout history have shared “directives” with modern American Baptists from the time of the Apostles to the present.

I will reiterate my post #244…

You are still looking at the Church as a physical thing. True, local churches exist as congregations of true believers, but to be a member of one of these local churches is not Christianity in itself. Just because a person came out of the Catholic Church, and was saved such as Balthasar Hubmaier, it doesn’t negate their Christianity, it only means they changed their affiliation to a congregation of like-minded Christians.

I know… You say the Church is visible… You said…

Jesus was not the founder of multiple, competing Christianities with contradictory teachings from one church to the next. You are not giving God enough credit to be able to create one coherent, identifiable and visible Church.

Yes, I am. But I am also giving God more credit than that. I am giving Him enough credit to build a spiritual body of Christ that exists now in the Holy Spirit, who’s members will be resurrected and join Him at the marriage supper of the Lamb. THAT is the REAL Universal Church… the Church that you claim to be Catholic has NEVER been completely united physically.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

As I have stated before on this post, and on others… the nature of your posts do not seem to be in the interest of reaching the truth, but rather they seem to attempt to misguide the other readers from seeking the truth by reinforcing Catholic notions.

Unfortunately, your belief-system indoctrinates you with a fear and suspicion of Catholicism. I have dialogued with many Baptists and the continuous theme is a very perverted understanding of what the Church teaches and little to no knowledge of the origins of the Baptist movement.

This fear, suspicion and misinformation is the only barrier between a Baptist and the discovery of the truth of the Catholic Church. Your responses are consistent only in that they take every angle possible to deny any connection to the Catholic Church.

By asking questions like the final paragraph of your previous post, it is obvious that you are not seeking the truth, or truthful answers, but are drawing the debate back to Catholic preconceived notions, and persuading the reader to disregard any proofs to an alternative view.

Are you not used to direct, historically accurate questions? You have a fuzzy notion of the possibility that maybe your Bible came from some text from some place in some era from some unidentified non-Catholic Christian source. Is that supposed to be respectable scholarship? If a Baptist is to claim that their Bible Canon did not come from the Catholic Church, should they not be held accountable for answering just where it did come from?

Any further debate with you along these lines will prove to be completely fruitless, and will only enable you to continue instilling darkness in the minds of those who read these posts. Your intention seems to be to propagate lies, with no concern for proofs to the truth.

Firstly, the Catholic Church is truth. I encourage anyone who is reading this post and is uncertain, pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you to truth, even if that guidance leads you to… gasp!.. The Catholic Church.

Secondly, this is a Catholic forum and you are a guest here. If you do not want to dialogue with me because you believe I am propagating darkness and lies, then don’t post on a Catholic apologetics forum.

If you don’t have a desire for truth, and you know I am not going to be deceived by your alterior motives, why else would you continue to debate with me? If you want to discredit me start a thread to do it… Here is a name for it, “BA is not credible”, and post your deception there.

I’m not interested in discrediting you. It is the Baptist confessions that are not credible.

Otherwise…Do you have an argument concerning baptism? Do you have a repudiation for what I have posted in # 228?

You were wrong about the existence of the Peshito in the 2nd century…

I don’t know where you are getting this. We discussed the Peshito/Peshitta. We agreed that the Syriac churches have always used these versions and that they have no connection to the Baptist religions.

You were wrong about all Anabaptists being breakaway sects of the Catholic Church…

I don’t know where you are getting this. You gave me a list of the first Anabaptists and I showed you how all of the names you listed were once Catholics - Simons, Manz, Hubmaier. You can’t show a more clear break from the Catholic Church than that.

and your wrong about the Catholic Church giving us our Bible…

Yet you use the Catholic New Testament Canon and you have no credible alternative explanation as to how your Canon came about.

Now, let’s talk about Baptism… unless you don’t have anything else to say.

Sure, let’s talk about baptism. Can we start by discussing the pictures in the early Christian catacombs that depict pouring as the method of baptizing?

And I have lots more to say. I will defend the Holy Church founded by Christ at every opportunity. That’s why I’m here at Catholic.com.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I don’t know where you are getting this. We discussed the Peshito/Peshitta. We agreed that the Syriac churches have always used these versions and that they have no connection to the Baptist religions.

You do know where I am getting that… I claimed that those early Syriac churches were baptist in “distinctives”.

I don’t know where you are getting this. You gave me a list of the first Anabaptists and I showed you how all of the names you listed were once Catholics - Simons, Manz, Hubmaier. You can’t show a more clear break from the Catholic Church than that.

Although you can’t tie the Olchan or the Bohemians to the Catholic Church, and you failed to prove the majority of Christians in the 2nd or 3rd century were Catholic in distinctives.

Yet you use the Catholic New Testament Canon and you have no credible alternative explanation as to how your Canon came about.

Good, since you are total agreement with the King James Version, we are in agreement there. Now we have the basis for a good debate for Baptism.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Sure, let’s talk about baptism. Can we start by discussing the pictures in the early Christian catacombs that depict pouring as the method of baptizing?

I don’t agree that every early Christian was infallible, just as Peter himself made mistakes, so I don’t doubt that there were early Christians who perverted the ordinance of baptism, or that they drew pictures about it.

Since you are in agreement with the King James Version; why don’t we start there. I will refer you again to post #228 where I used the (so called) “Catholic Canon” to refute the “Catholic” interpretation of Baptism.

And I have lots more to say. I will defend the Holy Church founded by Christ at every opportunity. That’s why I’m here at Catholic.com

I am eagerly anticipating your arguments

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

For reference purposes I have copied post #228…

Quote:
Rom 12:5 So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

We are the body of Christ, not physically as His representatives on earth, but spiritually “in Christ”. We are made the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, who, when we are regenerated baptizes us into that body that is bound together by the Holy Spirit…

Quote:
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Again, we are “baptized” into this body by the Holy Spirit…

Quote:
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

As the verse above says, we “have been all made to drink into one Spirit”. This is to say that we are members of this “invisible” body because we are united by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit…

Quote:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

In this sense, the kingdom of Israel was antitypical of the New Testament Church, not being a physical earthly kingdom… but an spiritual kingdom in the Holy Spirit, and in Christ.

This Church will not be physicaly united until we (as the bride of Christ) are present in the “new Jerusalem” which at that time will be in heaven…

Quote:
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The “general assembly” could also be translated “general church” which is contrasted here with the “local church”. This meeting will occur in heaven, and is recorded by John (who entered into eternity when he saw the vision)…

Quote:
Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed [are] they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Those who are saved are the bride of Christ, and we will not be united with the bridegroom until He calls us up… the bride is the same as “the church”. This is not meant a physical building, or a heirarchy, or a local congregation, but those who comprise the “body of Christ”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You do know where I am getting that… I claimed that those early Syriac churches were baptist in “distinctives”.

You stated that they were Baptist-like because they wandered as evangelists, is that right? That is hardly a distinction exclusive to Baptists. Not to mention the fact that I encouraged you to read about the Syrian churches today who have inherited the legacy of the Peshito/Peshitta, including the Maronites (a rite of the Catholic Church). The inheritors of these Syriac versions of the Bible are nothing like Baptists.

Although you can’t tie the Olchan or the Bohemians to the Catholic Church, and you failed to prove the majority of Christians in the 2nd or 3rd century were Catholic in distinctives.

I didn’t know I was being asked. I will post about that soon.

Good, since you are total agreement with the King James Version, we are in agreement there. Now we have the basis for a good debate for Baptism.

Does that mean that you agree that the New Testament Canon in the KJV is the Catholic Canon?

 

[Eden]

I don’t agree that every early Christian was infallible, just as Peter himself made mistakes

Your understanding of the doctrine of infallibility in the Church is a common misinterpretation by, sorry - Protestants. Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope does not make mistakes. It means he is incapable of teaching error regarding faith and morals.

so I don’t doubt that there were early Christians who perverted the ordinance of baptism, or that they drew pictures about it.

So, is the Didache also a perversion? It is recognized as the earliest-surviving Christian document and clearly states that pouring is an acceptable method of baptism.

Since you are in agreement with the King James Version; why don’t we start there. I will refer you again to post #228 where I used the (so called) “Catholic Canon” to refute the “Catholic” interpretation of Baptism.

O.K. I’ll check it out.