Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

[Moriah]

Wittenberger,

Why did the Catholics add things centuries and centuries later, if those in the

New Testament times had practiced them?

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ.

320 Wax Candles introduced in church.

375 Veneration of angels and dead saints.

394 The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted.

431 The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term,

"Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus

500 Priests began to dress differently from the laity

526 Extreme Unction

593 The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great

600 The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9).

600 The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church

(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)
610 The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

See complete list: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

 

[Moriah]

Wittenberger,

Here are more of the Catholics added traditions, traditions that are far removed in time and in doctrine from the New Testament Christians.

I want to copy and paste the rest of the list here because you might not bother to click on the link. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm


The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). 709
The Temporal power of the Popes

When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matthew 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38). 750
Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Exodus 20:4; 3:17; Deuteronomy 27:15; Psalm 115). 788
Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850
The veneration of St. Joseph began 890
The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV 965
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV

Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2). 995
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3). 998
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079
The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). 1090
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year

By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; 1st Corinthians 11:26). 1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council

The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). 1215
The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). 1220
The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia

Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). 1229
The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk

It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism. 1287
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance

The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matthew 26:27; 1st Corinthians 11:26-29). 1414
The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). 1439
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed

The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28). 1439
The Ave Maria, part of the last

It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V, at the end of the 16th century. 1508
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible

By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18). 1545
The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent

These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Revelation 22:8-9). 1546
The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles

True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Galatians 1:8). 1560
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility

This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).

1870
Pope Plus X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "Modernism", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church

Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864. 1907
In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools 1930
In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God"

This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke 1:46-49; John 2: l-5). 1931
In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950

 

[Walter]

I could 'cut & paste' from Catholic websites which would trash the lies from the website you took this from, Moriah. I don't think it is condusive to intelligent debate. Why don't you try thinking for yourself, or better yet, actually study what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches instead of depending on anti-Catholic propaganda which is not grounded in truth.

And, BTW, Wittenburger is not Catholic. Wittenburger is LCMS and happens to believe that the historical evidence proves that baptismal regeneration has been understood by the Church from the very start. This thread is not about trashing the Catholic Church, although because of your seething hatred for Catholics, that is what you want to make it. Why don't you give it a rest?

 

[Wittenberger]

Why? What fruit is there in it? We know that most known heresies of the RCC and other churches come from the ECF. Why read through volumes of the same people who already are known to hold many heresies to find "truth"? That seems a bit inconsistent to me. It is doing things backwards. Truth is found in the Word of God. If your not willing to accept it then so be it.

If you are unable to stand on the Word of God, demonstrate your beliefs by the Word of God without being "shot down" what good is there. History is not our guideline. It is not our authority, and never has been. It always has been the Word of God.

Frankly I am too busy to wade through voluminous material when I am too busy preparing to preach to those whom I feed. That is what takes my time: personal Bible study, time with God, and not the reading and studying of fallible men who were instrumental in bringing error into the early churches. That is simply a waste of time.

Dear brother,

I am not trying to insult you or "beat" you in a debate.

No one on the face of planet earth held the Baptist beliefs on baptism and the Lord's Supper during the early years of the Church. No one!

If you want to believe that in the lands ruled by the Romans, "catholics" erased all evidence of the early Baptists, I can't talk you out of that conspiracy theory.

But what about the Christians in Persia, India and Ethiopia? These lands were not under the Roman Empire or the Roman Church. Why don't we find evidence of the "true" Christians and their "Baptist" doctrines in these countries?

I know it is painful, pastor, but I have shown you that your belief system on these two doctrines is based on no stronger evidence than that the Mormons use: how you feel inside about your beliefs.

Sometimes the truth is painful, but it is my duty as your Christian brother to point out the false teachings that you and other Baptists and evangelicals have been following.

 

[Wittenberger]

How ironic, for you to speak to unbiblical Mormons with your strongest unbiblical defense.

You unbiblical defense is to rely on men’s teachings that came AFTER the men of the Bible.

One scripture from the Bible is powerful and the Mormons cannot go against it is Galatians 1:8.

Joseph Smith said an angel named Moroni gave him the other testament.

You have ears, but do not hear, my sister.

 

[Wittenberger]

Moriah, why then were not the works of the Gnostics and the other heretics destroyed?

And since you cannot help yourself with the continuing the 'doctrinal dance', I will make some comments. The constant teaching of the Church has been that intercession of the saints is biblical. Hebrews 12 says that we are surrounded (present tense) in our race here by all the borthers and sisters who have gone before us. So, we aren't alone! It is kinda like we are in London in the Olympic Stadium and the people in the stands are former medalists in the race in which I am now competing. They know what it takes to win and they are surrounding me cheering me on.

If the prayers of a righteous man a very powerful, as it says in James 6:16, who much more those who are perfected? If I can ask my mother on earth to pray for me and know that God hears her petitions, why can't I ask the Mother of Jesus to pray for me? This is not necromancy-these souls are the living, not the dead and I'm not asking them to tell me the future. I am simply asking them to intercede for me on my behalf, just like I could ask you to intercede for me. No worship of Mary or the saints. The Church condemns that.

The prayer for intercession do not detract from God's glory, it demonstrates God's glory because we are living faithfully as brothers and sister in Him. These saints really are our older siblings in the Lord.

Although Lutherans do not believe in praying to Mary, the Mother of God, or to other saints, because Christ is our one and only mediator, don't you think that Jesus listens to a Catholic Christian who prays in ernest to His Mother Mary. This is not something to argue over. Unless the RCC elevates Mary to the level of co-redeemer this issue is not worth fighting over.

The true issues that Baptists and evangelicals need to look at is their sixteenth century beliefs of symbolic baptism and symbolic Lord's Supper.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Although Lutherans do not believe in praying to Mary, the Mother of God, or to other saints, because Christ is our one and only mediator, don't you think that Jesus listens to a Catholic Christian who prays in ernest to His Mother Mary. This is not something to argue over. Unless the RCC elevates Mary to the level of co-redeemer this issue is not worth fighting over.

The true issues that Baptists and evangelicals need to look at is their sixteenth century beliefs of symbolic baptism and symbolic Lord's Supper.

If you don't mind me answering this question. I will apply what I know (which is very little) In the book of Revelation it says

the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Now, I'm assuming that the "prayer of the saints" are the vision of the "golden bowls full of incense" which are are brought before God. Do you think God hears those prayers which the elders give to God from other people who are the saints of God? I certainly think that in as much as God hears me when I pray for you I think God hears the prayers of those with him who pray for his saints on earth.

 

[Wittenberger]

Wittenberger,

Why did the Catholics add things centuries and centuries later, if those in the

New Testament times had practiced them?

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ.

320 Wax Candles introduced in church.

375 Veneration of angels and dead saints.

394 The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted.

431 The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term,

"Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus

500 Priests began to dress differently from the laity

526 Extreme Unction

593 The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great

600 The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9).

600 The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church

(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)
610 The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

See complete list: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

Dear Sister,

You will get no argument from me that the church in Rome added many false teachings to the Christian Church. That is why Martin Luther spoke out against indulgences, salvation assisted by good works, Purgatory, priestly celibacy, monastic orders, the addition of six new Sacraments, etc, etc.

You have very accurately shown how these false teachings were added by the Church.

The difference between Lutherans and Baptists is this: Lutherans wanted to stay in the historic, catholic (universal) Church established by Christ, but wanted to get rid of the "barnacles" that had been added to the Church over 1,500 years.

Reformed Christians, including Baptists, and Anabaptists decided to not only "clean house", but to "throw the baby out with the bath water"! They came up with new doctrines on baptism and the Lord's Supper that had never existed before in the Church. Luther removed all teachings that were not held by the early Church Fathers. Baptists threw the Church Fathers out the window!

 

[Wittenberger]

Wittenberger,

Why did the Catholics add things centuries and centuries later, if those in the

New Testament times had practiced them?

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ.

320 Wax Candles introduced in church.

375 Veneration of angels and dead saints.

394 The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted.

431 The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term,

"Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus

500 Priests began to dress differently from the laity

526 Extreme Unction

593 The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great

600 The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9).

600 The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church

(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)
610 The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

See complete list: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

Dear Sister,

You continue to argue with me over teachings, added AFTER the early Church Fathers, that Lutherans do not teach or practice.

Take these issues up with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

The issue at hand is this: On the doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper, do Baptists have ANY historical evidence, anywhere on planet earth, that early Christians after the Apostles, held their belief that these two commands of Christ are symbolic acts of obedience only?

 

[The Biblicist]

Dear Sister,

The difference between Lutherans and Baptists is this: Lutherans wanted to stay in the historic, catholic (universal) Church established by Christ, but wanted to get rid of the "barnacles" that had been added to the Church over 1,500 years.

Reformed Christians, including Baptists, and Anabaptists decided to not only "clean house", but to "throw the baby out with the bath water"! They came up with new doctrines on baptism and the Lord's Supper that had never existed before in the Church. Luther removed all teachings that were not held by the early Church Fathers. Baptists threw the Church Fathers out the window!

This is simply not true. Baptists rejected both Mother Rome and her Reformed daughters because they had a long history of corruption and apostasy.

Rome and her daughters are like the Jews during the days of Christ, corrupted by false traditions. Why did Christ completely ignore 4000 years of tradition and NEVER ONCE refer to tradition as any source of authority for doctrine and practice? Same reason Baptist completely ignore 1900 years of tradition today.

 

[Wittenberger]

This is simply not true. Baptists rejected both Mother Rome and her Reformed daughters because they had a long history of corruption and apostasy.

Rome and her daughters are like the Jews during the days of Christ, corrupted by false traditions. Why did Christ completely ignore tradition and NEVER ONCE refer to tradition as any source of authority for doctrine and practice? Same reason Baptist completely ignore tradition today.

Dear Brother Biblicist,

I was wondering why we hadn't heard from you! Good to hear from you, brother!

Christ DID follow traditions. He followed most of the traditions of the Jews including resting on the Sabbath, worshipping in the temple as a child and as an adult, worshipping in the synagogue, and observing Jewish religious holidays such as Passover. Jesus observed a Jewish Passover seder with this Jewish disciples when they observed what we now call "The Lord's Supper". To the disciples they were observing a Jewish seder that night.

The apostle Paul also commanded early Christians to follow his "traditions". He used that exact word. Traditions such as how to have a worship service, which often were held in the Jewish synagogues, so Paul and these Jewish Christians had to follow the Jewish worship format to participate in these Jewish services. Do you think they "rented out" the Jewish synagogue to have a "Christian" service all by themselves?

Much of the liturgy used in Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Coptic worship services come directly from this "Jewish" style of worship or tradition that Paul told his followers to preserve.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dear Brother Biblicist,

I was wondering why we hadn't heard from you! Good to hear from you, brother!

Christ DID follow traditions. He followed most of the traditions of the Jews including resting on the Sabbath, worshipping in the temple as a child and as an adult, worshipping in the synagogue, and observing Jewish religious holidays such as Passover. Jesus observed a Jewish Passover seder with this Jewish disciples when they observed what we now call "The Lord's Supper". To the disciples they were observing a Jewish seder that night.

The apostle Paul also commanded early Christians to follow his "traditions". He used that exact word. Traditions such as how to have a worship service, which often were held in the Jewish synagogues, so Paul and these Jewish Christians had to follow the Jewish worship format to participate in these Jewish services. Do you think they "rented out" the Jewish synagogue to have a "Christian" service all by themselves?

Much of the liturgy used in Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Coptic worship services come directly from this "Jewish" style of worship or tradition that Paul told his followers to preserve.

I agree with Martin Luther when he emphatically stated "hoc est corpus meum" in his statement refuting Zwingli.

 

[DHK]

Dear brother,

I am not trying to insult you or "beat" you in a debate.

No one on the face of planet earth held the Baptist beliefs on baptism and the Lord's Supper during the early years of the Church. No one!

If you want to believe that in the lands ruled by the Romans, "catholics" erased all evidence of the early Baptists, I can't talk you out of that conspiracy theory.

But what about the Christians in Persia, India and Ethiopia? These lands were not under the Roman Empire or the Roman Church. Why don't we find evidence of the "true" Christians and their "Baptist" doctrines in these countries?

I know it is painful, pastor, but I have shown you that your belief system on these two doctrines is based on no stronger evidence than that the Mormons use: how you feel inside about your beliefs.

Sometimes the truth is painful, but it is my duty as your Christian brother to point out the false teachings that you and other Baptists and evangelicals have been following.

No one on the face of planet earth held the Baptist beliefs on baptism and the Lord's Supper during the early years of the Church. No one!

This is a logical fallacy called a universal negative.
You can't prove it. It is impossible. You sound ridiculous even to state it.
Here is what you have to prove to demonstrate your assertion:

Go back in history to the first century.
Interview everyone that lived at that time, including all in India and Ethiopian. Remember that Thomas and Barnabas went there. Don't miss anyone. Every person must be interviewed who ever lived during the first century from the time of the death of Christ to the time of the end of the early Roman empire as you say. If you can find one person that believed as we do then you are proven false.
Your premise says "No one believed." It is a universal negative which you cannot prove. I hope you have a time-machine in good working order

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No one on the face of planet earth held the Baptist beliefs on baptism and the Lord's Supper during the early years of the Church. No one!

This is a logical fallacy called a universal negative.
You can't prove it. It is impossible. You sound ridiculous even to state it.
Here is what you have to prove to demonstrate your assertion:

Go back in history to the first century.
Interview everyone that lived at that time, including all in India and Ethiopian. Remember that Thomas and Barnabas went there. Don't miss anyone. Every person must be interviewed who ever lived during the first century from the time of the death of Christ to the time of the end of the early Roman empire as you say. If you can find one person that believed as we do then you are proven false.
Your premise says "No one believed." It is a universal negative which you cannot prove. I hope you have a time-machine in good working order

There is certainly no evidence of that time period of people holding baptist beliefs. Also if you go to India and look at the Oldest Churches that have records going back to Thomas you find that they aren't baptist in belief but Catholic or Orthodox. The oldest being at Palayur which is Catholic.

 

[DHK]

There is certainly no evidence of that time period of people holding baptist beliefs. Also if you go to India and look at the Oldest Churches that have records going back to Thomas you find that they aren't baptist in belief but Catholic or Orthodox. The oldest being at Palayur which is Catholic.

"No evidence" How omniscient are you?
When William Carey lived he translated the Bible or parts thereof into over 40 different languages and wrote books, tracts and other materials in those same languages. How many of them have you read? How many of those languages do you know? What do you mean "no evidence"? Have you really looked? I don't think so. You are merely stating an opinion, a biased RCC one, with no real evidence.
And BTW, Carey was a Baptist.

 

[Wittenberger]

No one on the face of planet earth held the Baptist beliefs on baptism and the Lord's Supper during the early years of the Church. No one!

This is a logical fallacy called a universal negative.
You can't prove it. It is impossible. You sound ridiculous even to state it.
Here is what you have to prove to demonstrate your assertion:

Go back in history to the first century.
Interview everyone that lived at that time, including all in India and Ethiopian. Remember that Thomas and Barnabas went there. Don't miss anyone. Every person must be interviewed who ever lived during the first century from the time of the death of Christ to the time of the end of the early Roman empire as you say. If you can find one person that believed as we do then you are proven false.
Your premise says "No one believed." It is a universal negative which you cannot prove. I hope you have a time-machine in good working order

You are absolutely correct, brother. I misstated my position. What I should have said is that there are no historical records, no legal records, no writings on cave walls, no records of oral traditions of anyone in any part of the world, including non-Roman lands such as Persia, India and Ethopia, who believed that baptism and the Lord's Supper were only symbolic acts of obedience.

If there were any "Baptists" is these regions, there is no record of it.

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Wittenberger]

"No evidence" How omniscient are you?
When William Carey lived he translated the Bible or parts thereof into over 40 different languages and wrote books, tracts and other materials in those same languages. How many of them have you read? How many of those languages do you know? What do you mean "no evidence"? Have you really looked? I don't think so. You are merely stating an opinion, a biased RCC one, with no real evidence.
And BTW, Carey was a Baptist.

I am willing to bet good money that if there were any historical evidence to support the Baptist position, as many Baptists and evangelical Christians as there are in the world, at least one of you would have found it by now.

 

[DHK]

I am willing to bet good money that if there were any historical evidence to support the Baptist position, as many Baptists and evangelical Christians as there are in the world, at least one of you would have found it by now.

Who says I am looking. I know there is plenty. Read some Baptist history and don't be so biased.
There is history but it is harder to find. Although I don't fully endorse the pamphlet "The Trail of Blood" because of some of the errors contained within, I endorse its basic theme--that in every generation God has preserved a remnant of Bible believing churches, faithful to his word, entirely apart from the RCC and other heretical groups. Their history may, at times, be hard to find. The reason for that is simple. They, as the pamphlet implies, left a "trail of blood," not of books. They were persecuted, maligned, denigrated, imprisoned, and even put to death for their faith. For example, Innocent III led a Crusade specifically to exterminate the Albigenses, a God-fearing sect of Christians who were doing no harm to anyone. The history of the wickedness of the RCC is well established.
The "anabaptists" have that name for a reason. It was given to them out of derision. It means to baptize again. They were put to death, mostly by Catholics, for doing just that--baptizing again. Converts had already been baptized as infants. Once saved, believing in Christ by faith, they were baptized ("again") or in reality the first time, since an infant baptism is no baptism at all. For this many of them were put to death. It is hard to write your history when you yourself are being drowned, beheaded, burned at the steak, etc.
Therefore there is a lack of history concerning many of the true Baptists.

 

[Wittenberger]

Who says I am looking. I know there is plenty. Read some Baptist history and don't be so biased.
There is history but it is harder to find. Although I don't fully endorse the pamphlet "The Trail of Blood" because of some of the errors contained within, I endorse its basic theme--that in every generation God has preserved a remnant of Bible believing churches, faithful to his word, entirely apart from the RCC and other heretical groups. Their history may, at times, be hard to find. The reason for that is simple. They, as the pamphlet implies, left a "trail of blood," not of books. They were persecuted, maligned, denigrated, imprisoned, and even put to death for their faith. For example, Innocent III led a Crusade specifically to exterminate the Albigenses, a God-fearing sect of Christians who were doing no harm to anyone. The history of the wickedness of the RCC is well established.
The "anabaptists" have that name for a reason. It was given to them out of derision. It means to baptize again. They were put to death, mostly by Catholics, for doing just that--baptizing again. Converts had already been baptized as infants. Once saved, believing in Christ by faith, they were baptized ("again") or in reality the first time, since an infant baptism is no baptism at all. For this many of them were put to death. It is hard to write your history when you yourself are being drowned, beheaded, burned at the steak, etc.
Therefore there is a lack of history concerning many of the true Baptists.

I fully agree with you that some of the worst crimes committed against humanity have been done in the name of Jesus Christ and the Church in Rome. But Protestants of done their share of killing too.

The trail of blood has little historical evidence, but again bases it's existence on a heart felt belief by its adherents that it is true and the necessity of a conspiracy theory to negate a need for hard evidence.

Again, these are the same arguements used by the Mormons.

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"No evidence" How omniscient are you?

I never made that claim.

When William Carey lived he translated the Bible or parts thereof into over 40 different languages and wrote books, tracts and other materials in those same languages. How many of them have you read? How many of those languages do you know? What do you mean "no evidence"? Have you really looked? I don't think so.

And each of those writings can be found and connected to the Plodding Missionary. That is evidence that baptist were in India in 1793.

You are merely stating an opinion, a biased RCC one, with no real evidence.
And BTW, Carey was a Baptist.

Not an opinion. There is not one early greek text or fragment that indicates a baptist position. I can even support the Marian Dogma of Theotokos (Mother of God) going back to 250 AD long before it became dogmatic. The John Rylands Library in Manchester England procured a panel of papyrus which included a fragment Greek text of an early Prayer to Mary the prayer is called in Latin Sub Tuum Praesidium where the greek text is read .
ΠΟ
ΕΥCΠΑ
ΚΑΤΑΦΕ
ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ
ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ
ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC
AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ
...ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC
MONH
...HEΥΛΟΓ which comes from the full Greek text
Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν
εὐσπλαγχνίαν
καταφεύγομεν
Θεοτὸκε· τὰς ἡμῶν
ἱκεσίας μὴ παρ-
ίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνου
λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς
μόνη ἁγνὴ
μόνη εὐλογημένη
which says in english
Under your
mercy
we take refuge,
Mother of God! Our
prayers, do not despise
in necessities,
but from the danger
deliver us,
only pure,
only blessed.
The document was dated between 250 AD and 280 AD.

The is no such evidence of that being true for baptist documents. We don't find prolific (or even one document) documents supporting baptist doctrine in the early centuries of the Church. And as prolific writers baptist have been since their inseption I find this a curious instance. Where are all the evidences of baptist doctrine in the Early Church? But there are tons of documentation supporting Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic churches.