P
phatcatholic
Guest
sherlock…right above the pic is the link where u can find it
- Status
S
Shari
Guest
Not to sound dumb, but i don’t understand what you wrote. I am not trying to sound like an atheist, maybe I worded things wrong. I just ment that the baptist religion couldn’t have been started by John the baptist, because Cristianity didn’t happen until after the resurection and John was beheaded before that. There hopefully that is worded better.
P
phatcatholic
Guest
shari,
1962Missal was using a play on words. you spelled your word “crucifiction” instead of “crucifixion.” since the word “fiction” means “false” and athiests don’t believe in God, then to them, the crucifixion would be cruci-“fiction”…get it?
hehe, all in good fun. pax christi,
phatcatholic
1962Missal was using a play on words. you spelled your word “crucifiction” instead of “crucifixion.” since the word “fiction” means “false” and athiests don’t believe in God, then to them, the crucifixion would be cruci-“fiction”…get it?
hehe, all in good fun. pax christi,
phatcatholic
S
Shari
Guest
Thanks for the clarification, boy I wish I had spell check. LOL Not my best subject. I am definitley not athiests. And yes I understand all in good fun, no harm done.
L
LisaH
Guest
I’ve been browsing on a baptist board - baptist.org - and I get the same anti-intellectual, non-historical, King James Version only hogwash. I think a previous post was correct in stating that they can’t acknowledge that the Catholic church was the only church for 1500 years because they would actually have to think about what they believe in vs. the historical Church teachings.
I was surprised by the level of hate for the Catholic Church on the baptist board. Its very sad. From what I understand from the people who post, they can agree only on two basic principles.
1 . The Holy Spirit will guide you to a true interpretation of the Bible. Of course, they differ on interpretations of certain passages. I ask them which Holy Spirit are they listening to?
2. Sola Scriptura - if it’s not in the Bible, then it’s not true.
They differ on the concept of once saved, always saved. They differ on infant baptism - most against.
Many think that the King James Version of the Bible is the only approved translation that the English speaking people should use. Roman Catholics are going to hell. Catholics have added books to the Bible.
Most of the “information” they post about the Catholic church comes from two sites - wayoflife.org and Chick publications. The moderator is a great believer in the “Trail of Blood” book. Talking to these people is like talking to the wall. They don’t want to be confused with the facts.
I was surprised by the level of hate for the Catholic Church on the baptist board. Its very sad. From what I understand from the people who post, they can agree only on two basic principles.
1 . The Holy Spirit will guide you to a true interpretation of the Bible. Of course, they differ on interpretations of certain passages. I ask them which Holy Spirit are they listening to?
2. Sola Scriptura - if it’s not in the Bible, then it’s not true.
They differ on the concept of once saved, always saved. They differ on infant baptism - most against.
Many think that the King James Version of the Bible is the only approved translation that the English speaking people should use. Roman Catholics are going to hell. Catholics have added books to the Bible.
Most of the “information” they post about the Catholic church comes from two sites - wayoflife.org and Chick publications. The moderator is a great believer in the “Trail of Blood” book. Talking to these people is like talking to the wall. They don’t want to be confused with the facts.
P
phatcatholic
Guest
lisah,
shew, welcome to my world! my time spent over at the “former catholics for christ” ezboard has been similarly trying.
good luck to you. we should pray for each other
pax christi,
phatcatholic
shew, welcome to my world! my time spent over at the “former catholics for christ” ezboard has been similarly trying.
good luck to you. we should pray for each other
pax christi,
phatcatholic
A
AugustineH354
Guest
Hello Sherlock,
Would like affirm Phil’s recommendation; McGoldrick’s Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History is an excellent read. It is kind of spendy for a small paperback (181 pages). The best new price I could find online is $27.90 (see
allbookstores.com/book/compare/0810836815), and if you have the cash it is a must read IMO.
I would also like to recommend McBeth’s *The Baptist Heritage - Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. *At the date of the it’s printing (1987) McBeth was professor of Chuch History at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Though dry at times (as history can be ) it is an accurate, in-depth (849 pages), account of real Baptist history.
Aug
Would like affirm Phil’s recommendation; McGoldrick’s Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History is an excellent read. It is kind of spendy for a small paperback (181 pages). The best new price I could find online is $27.90 (see
allbookstores.com/book/compare/0810836815), and if you have the cash it is a must read IMO.
I would also like to recommend McBeth’s *The Baptist Heritage - Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. *At the date of the it’s printing (1987) McBeth was professor of Chuch History at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Though dry at times (as history can be ) it is an accurate, in-depth (849 pages), account of real Baptist history.
Aug
K
Katholikos
Guest
turrisfortis.com/
turrisfortis has an article written by Catholic convert and apologist Matthew Newsome called The Trail of Lies, an answer to the Trail of Tears by J.W. Carroll, on which ‘Jesus-founded-the-Baptists’ believers rely for their invented “history.” [It’s pure bull-oney.]
I bought the “Trail of Tears” from the Bryan Station Baptists of Lexington, KY, online for $1.50.
The problem with the Baptists of the first and subsequent centuries is that they were phantoms – they left no footprints in the sands of history. Nary a one. Until 1607 when they were founded by John Smyth in Amsterdam.
Ex-Southtern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
turrisfortis has an article written by Catholic convert and apologist Matthew Newsome called The Trail of Lies, an answer to the Trail of Tears by J.W. Carroll, on which ‘Jesus-founded-the-Baptists’ believers rely for their invented “history.” [It’s pure bull-oney.]
I bought the “Trail of Tears” from the Bryan Station Baptists of Lexington, KY, online for $1.50.
The problem with the Baptists of the first and subsequent centuries is that they were phantoms – they left no footprints in the sands of history. Nary a one. Until 1607 when they were founded by John Smyth in Amsterdam.
Ex-Southtern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
P
Puzzled
Guest
Message:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/removeformat.gif Message:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/removeformat.gif
phat, I don’t see 25,000 there
The modern baptists had their start in the Reformation (and not as anabaptists). They -may- have had some influence from the Lollards, which were probably started by the Waldensians, who go back to 1170 or earlier. They thought that they went back to the time of Justinian, and were decended from those who did not accept Pope Sylvester’s submission of the Church to Caesar, and that they were related to the North Africans who did not accept people who had burned incense to Caesar during the persecutions, as bishops and officers of the Roman State. The Hussites were -also- influence by the Unitas Fratras or Waldensians, and about a decade ago joined the Evangelical Free Church, recognizing it as a manifestation of the same “first reformation”, as Unitas Fratras missionaries had an impact on the development of the Lutheran Pietist movements.
Now, as you can see, there are some places in this chain where the trail grows cold. One might think more in the nature of inherited ideas, than proven personal sucession.
The Waldensians are interesting. “Peter Waldo” which may be a symbolic name, and his small group of followers approached the bishop (of, I think Savoy, it might have been Lyon) and asked for permision to preach conversion to Christ and holiness of life. The curia laughed at them, and forbade them to preach, for they had no seminary training. They ignored the order, and preached on into the present day, for many centuries, they still went to mass, and received the sacraments in Catholic parishes. A hundred or so years later, another young man, in the same region, with the same message,with his small band of brothers, approached the bishop, and were given the same response. But they appealed to Rome, and were given approval. These are the Franciscans.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/removeformat.gif Message:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/removeformat.gif
phat, I don’t see 25,000 there
The modern baptists had their start in the Reformation (and not as anabaptists). They -may- have had some influence from the Lollards, which were probably started by the Waldensians, who go back to 1170 or earlier. They thought that they went back to the time of Justinian, and were decended from those who did not accept Pope Sylvester’s submission of the Church to Caesar, and that they were related to the North Africans who did not accept people who had burned incense to Caesar during the persecutions, as bishops and officers of the Roman State. The Hussites were -also- influence by the Unitas Fratras or Waldensians, and about a decade ago joined the Evangelical Free Church, recognizing it as a manifestation of the same “first reformation”, as Unitas Fratras missionaries had an impact on the development of the Lutheran Pietist movements.
Now, as you can see, there are some places in this chain where the trail grows cold. One might think more in the nature of inherited ideas, than proven personal sucession.
The Waldensians are interesting. “Peter Waldo” which may be a symbolic name, and his small group of followers approached the bishop (of, I think Savoy, it might have been Lyon) and asked for permision to preach conversion to Christ and holiness of life. The curia laughed at them, and forbade them to preach, for they had no seminary training. They ignored the order, and preached on into the present day, for many centuries, they still went to mass, and received the sacraments in Catholic parishes. A hundred or so years later, another young man, in the same region, with the same message,with his small band of brothers, approached the bishop, and were given the same response. But they appealed to Rome, and were given approval. These are the Franciscans.
K
Katholikos
Guest
The difference was that St. Francis was a loyal son of the Church and the Waldensians were heretics.
J
JPrejean
Guest
For those interested, this site actually does a good job of summarizing Baptist history without any of the “Trail of Blood” nonsense.
baptisthistory.org
baptisthistory.org
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Another Baptist site with Baptist history timeline:
reformedreader.org/btimline.htm
Odds and ends:
adherents.com/largecom/baptist_namechange.html
geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/8166/pbapt.html
reformedreader.org/btimline.htm
Odds and ends:
adherents.com/largecom/baptist_namechange.html
geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/8166/pbapt.html
K
Kevan
Guest
This is an old thread, but I thought I might add a little info in case someone is still interested.
Baptist “successionists” use a logic similar to that which we use when we say that the Bible is completely reliable and God’s word throughout. We say it even though we know that all handwritten manuscripts have “errors” in them: they all disagree with one another in various places. (They’re mostly “typos.”) Even though we don’t have a perfect copy of any book of the Bible, we “just know” that the original manuscripts which came from the hands of the apostles and prophets were inerrant. They were God’s word, and inerrant by definition.
Baptist successionist logic runs thus: (1) The New Testament church was Baptist because Baptist churches follow the New Testament pattern. (2) Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church (3) Therefore there “must have been” an unbroken succession of Baptist churches throughout Christian history, even though we can’t see them. Just look for a blood splotch; that’s where another Baptist was murdered.
FWIW, Baptists were, indeed, hunted like rats and killed in very large numbers.
Sometime in the past year, I heard a liberal in the media complain about Baptist opposition to one thing or another and he quipped “The problem with these Baptists is they don’t hold 'em under long enough!” He didn’t realize altogether what he’d said, but a shock of horror ran through me when I heard it. Drowning them in mockery was a common method of final execution after assorted tortures.
Baptist “successionists” use a logic similar to that which we use when we say that the Bible is completely reliable and God’s word throughout. We say it even though we know that all handwritten manuscripts have “errors” in them: they all disagree with one another in various places. (They’re mostly “typos.”) Even though we don’t have a perfect copy of any book of the Bible, we “just know” that the original manuscripts which came from the hands of the apostles and prophets were inerrant. They were God’s word, and inerrant by definition.
Baptist successionist logic runs thus: (1) The New Testament church was Baptist because Baptist churches follow the New Testament pattern. (2) Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church (3) Therefore there “must have been” an unbroken succession of Baptist churches throughout Christian history, even though we can’t see them. Just look for a blood splotch; that’s where another Baptist was murdered.
FWIW, Baptists were, indeed, hunted like rats and killed in very large numbers.
Sometime in the past year, I heard a liberal in the media complain about Baptist opposition to one thing or another and he quipped “The problem with these Baptists is they don’t hold 'em under long enough!” He didn’t realize altogether what he’d said, but a shock of horror ran through me when I heard it. Drowning them in mockery was a common method of final execution after assorted tortures.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
Unfortunately, many of the Baptists that we have encountered exhibit a strange hostility toward Mary that seems to be related directly to their ambient hostility toward Catholic practices and teachings. In particular, they have made the pretense that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, and thus bore other children besides Jesus, into something of a shibboleth by which to claim that Catholics wantonly ignore Biblical teachings in favor of the traditions of the Church.
Mary has thus become a stumbling block in the evangelical dialogue between Catholics and Baptists. This is unfortunate, as there is not a single shred of valid Biblical evidence that Mary did not remain a virgin all of her life. Hence, we feel that it is important to point out the lack of Biblical grounding for these popular Baptist beliefs about the pretended sexual proclivities of the Blessed Mother.
Mary has thus become a stumbling block in the evangelical dialogue between Catholics and Baptists. This is unfortunate, as there is not a single shred of valid Biblical evidence that Mary did not remain a virgin all of her life. Hence, we feel that it is important to point out the lack of Biblical grounding for these popular Baptist beliefs about the pretended sexual proclivities of the Blessed Mother.
R
rbrtncl
Guest
Hello, Friends!
I’m responding very late.
This is a very sorry story, totally baseless. If you asked this baptist friend to produce “one single historical document” he won’t be able to find it. They are surrounded by a host of “documents” that no seroius, academic historian can confirm at all. This congregation is an offshot of the anapbaptists in the XVI century.
Anyhow, tell him to to be lucky & get it at http//members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/bibletruth.html. However, it is much easier to google “biblical truth for baptists” & it’ll come up right there.
Very good website, very orthodox but don’t know the name of the owner. His/her email is HospRow@aol.com.
Good luck & God bless you all.
Rob
I’m responding very late.
This is a very sorry story, totally baseless. If you asked this baptist friend to produce “one single historical document” he won’t be able to find it. They are surrounded by a host of “documents” that no seroius, academic historian can confirm at all. This congregation is an offshot of the anapbaptists in the XVI century.
Anyhow, tell him to to be lucky & get it at http//members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/bibletruth.html. However, it is much easier to google “biblical truth for baptists” & it’ll come up right there.
Very good website, very orthodox but don’t know the name of the owner. His/her email is HospRow@aol.com.
Good luck & God bless you all.
Rob
P
PaulDupre
Guest
When and by whom were Baptists “hunted like rats and killed in very large numbers”? Citations please.FWIW, Baptists were, indeed, hunted like rats and killed in very large numbers.
R
RobHom
Guest
Yes please do provide bonafide and verifiable “SECULAR” oriented
proofs of that claim. In other words…if it comes from a “Baptist source”…it is not bonafide or verifiable. They are “historic revisionists” of the worst order. Sorry…but that is just a matter of fact and a truth.
Perhaps… if you did some reading here… it will provide some of the disclaimers showing the revisionist tendency they have and the fallacy thereof. turrisfortis.com/trail.html
The **only people in this country (America) that have persecuted BAPTISTS are OTHER Protestants. ** Go figure.
Go here: brucegourley.com/baptists/persecutionoutline.htm
If you “Google”: Persecution of Baptists… you will get all the information you could ever want…
This is one you can’t blame on Catholics
- Status