Featured How To Get To Heaven When You Die

Brother Lakeside, Wikipedia says it is an error to say they started with Thomas Muntzer as you have asserted. Also, it says research on the origins of the Anabaptists are skewed due to their enemies (probably the Roman Catholic church) trying to slander them

"Research on the origins of the Anabaptists has been tainted both by the attempts of their enemies to slander them and the attempts of their supporters to vindicate them. It was long popular to simply lump all Anabaptists as Munsterites and radicals associated with the Zwickau Prophets, Jan Matthys, John of Leiden, and Thomas Müntzer. Those desiring to correct this error tended to over-correct and deny all connections between the larger Anabaptist movement and the most radical elements...


...Though a number of theories exist concerning origins, the three main ones are:
that Anabaptism began in a single expression in Zürich and spread from there (Monogenesis);
that Anabaptism began through several independent movements (polygenesis); and
that Anabaptism was a continuation of true New Testament Christianity (apostolic succession or church perpetuity)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists

 

J.T. Christian in "A History of the Baptists," quotes from different sources about the origin of the Anabaptists:

They all take them back to the first century.

 

For those who don't want to do doctoral-level research, here is an article. Some criticize Wikipedia, but this is accurate and factual. I suggest a close reading of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists

 

Sorry folks but I like my reference sources over yours.


Anabaptists: Christian sects that arose in Europe during the 16th-cent. Protestant Reformation. Anabaptists generally rejected infant baptism in favor of adult baptism, favored separation of the church and stae, and opposed the use of force. The movement is said to have begun (c1520) in Zurich, Switzerland (Concise Dictionary of World History © 1986)

ANABAPTISTS: Nicholas Stork, a weaver (d. 1525), and Thomas Munzer, a Lutheran preacher and priest (c. 1490-1525), made, at the time of the so-called reformation, the first attacks on infant baptism, and thus launched the Anabaptist movement. They denied the validity of infant baptism; practiced communism and polygamy; and condemned oaths and warfare as unlawful.(FALSE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS THROUGH OUT HISTORY)

THE END OF THE ANABAPTISTS THE BIGNING OF THE MENNONITES:

The spread of the Anabaptists in lower Germany and the Netherlands must largely be ascribed to the activity of Melchior Hofmann, a widely traveled furrier. The arrival of some of his disciples (Melchiorites) at Münster in Westphalia (1533-34) marks the beginning of the most extraordinary period in the history of the Anabaptists and the city of Münster. In the latter, Bernard Rothmann a chaplain, and Knipperdollinck a cloth-merchant, had already succeeded in diffusing Lutheran ideas. They joined the Anabaptist movement, of which John Matthys or Matthiessen, a former baker, and John Bockelsohn or Bockold, a Dutch tailor (more generally known as John of Leyden), became two great local representatives. Knipperdollinck was elected burgomaster (February, 1534) and the city passed under the complete and unrestricted control of the partisans of rebaptism. Münster, instead of Strasburg, was to become the centre of the projected conquest of the world, the "New Jerusalem", the founding of which was signalized by a reign of terror and indescribable orgies. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed; communism, polygamy, and community of women were introduced. Rothmann took unto himself four wives and John of Leyden, sixteen. The latter was proclaimed King of the "New Sion", when Francis of Waldeck, Bishop and temporal lord of the city, had already begun its siege (1534). In June, 1535, the defence became more and more hopeless, and John, as a last means of escape, determined upon setting fire to the city. His plan was frustrated by the unexpected capture of the town by the besiegers (24 June, 1535). The King, his lieutenant Knipperdollinck, and his chancellor Krechting were seized, and after six months' imprisonment and torture, executed. As a terrible warning, their bodies were suspended in iron cages from the tower of St. Lambert's church. After the Münster (1524–25) uprising the movement all most ceased to existed.In 1536 Menno Simons a Dutch reformer (1496-1561), rebuilt the movement they became known as Mennonites.



My Reference Source

The very name Anabaptists was superseded by others, particularly that of Mennonites. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I Copyright © 1907)

Anabaptists:After the Münster (1524–25) uprising the movement all most ceased to existed.In 1536 Menno Simons a Dutch reformer (1496-1561), rebuilt the movement they became known as Mennonites. (Encyclopedia Americana © 1995 )

"The pacifist Anabaptists...rallied under the leadership of the former priest Menno Simons and his lieutenant, Dirk Philips. Their followers survived and were eventually accepted as the Mennonite religious group."(© 1999-2000 Britannica)

Mennonite:The name Mennonite is derived from Menno Simons (c.1496–1561), Dutch reformer and organizer of the early sect. Menno left the Catholic priesthood in 1536 to help gather together and rehabilitate the Anabaptists confused by the downfall of the revolutionary Anabaptist theocracy set up at Münster (c.1524–25). He soon became the movement's outstanding leader. The new movement restored the earlier evangelical form of Anabaptism. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright ©1993,)

 

THE FOUNDING OF THE BAPTISTS:

Let us examine the creation of the Baptist Sect Most scholars agree that The first Baptist congregations were organized in the beginning of the seventeenth century. The origin of the Baptists is connected with the name of John Smyth (d. 1612), pastor of a church at Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, which had separated from the Church of England. Smyth baptized first himself, then the others. The reader should take note of the fact that he not only baptized himself, but that he started out as a preacher in the Anglican church, in Lincoln, England. Please take note of the fact that it was not the anabaptist, or mennonite church, but the Anglican church. As was also shown above, John Smith then joined the Seperatists, and then, at a later date, formed his own church and baptized himself, as well as several others. Hence, neither he, nor any other follower of his sect, has any right to claim any lineage whatsoever stemming from either the anabaptists, or anyone else for that matter – who predates Smith himself.

About 1606, pastor and flock, to escape persecution. In 1609, Smyth, rejected infant baptism, although he retained affusion. In this he was supported by his church. Some members of the congregation returned to England (1611 or 1612) under the leadership of Helwys (c. 1550-1616) and formed in London the nucleus of the first Baptist community. Persecution had abated, and they do not seem to have been molested. By 1626 there were in different parts of England five General Baptist churches; by 1644, they had increased, it is said, to forty-seven; and by 1660 the membership of the body had reached about 20,000. It was between 1640 and 1660 that the General Baptists began to claim that immersion was the only valid mode of baptism. They were persecuted by Charles II (1660-85) of England ; but the Act of Toleration (1689) brought relief and recognized the Baptists as the third dissenting denomination (Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists).


Baptist Church:The leadership of Helwys and two others, John Smyth and John Mutron, proved decisive in the first two decades of the seventeenth century as the English "General Baptists" (that is, non-Calvinist, affirming an unrestricted or general (tonement for mankind) grew from a scarcely visible knot of believers in 1609 to around twenty thousand members by 1660. (Macmillan Copendium of World Religions © 1987)

Organizationally, Baptists originated in the early 17th century in Holland and England, with John Smyth (c. 1554–1612) and Thomas Helwys (c. 1560–1616), English separatists from the Anglican church, as leaders.(Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia© 1998-2000)


The General Baptists were first to appear. In 1608 religious persecution induced a group of Lincolnshire Separatists to seek asylum in Holland. A contingent settled in Amsterdam with John Smyth (or Smith), (© 1999-2000 Britannica)

Most scholars, however, agree that Baptists, as an English-speaking denomination, originated within 17th-century Puritanism as an offshoot of Congregationalism.(© 1999-2000 Britannica)

John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, English separatists of Congregational persuasion, founded the first Baptist church on Dutch soil at Amsterdam in 1609...Helwys returned to an unfriendly England. There, in 1611 or 1612, he led a small group of Christians in establishing the first Baptist church on English soil, at Spitalsfield, near London. As they grew in number, English Baptists came to be divided between General Baptists and Particular Baptists.(Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia© 1998-2000)

Baptist Church Early history...In 1606 John Smyth (or Smith), a former Anglican preacher in Lincoln, was serving as minister of a group of Separatists at Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. Thomas Helwys, a noted Separatist, was active in this group. About 1608 religious persecution induced Smyth and Helwys tolead their congregation to asylum in the Netherlands. Some settled in Amsterdam, with Smyth as their minister... Smyth’s views were set forth in The Character of the Beast, a pamphlet issued in 1609. In that same year 36 adherents joined him in forming a new church on the principle of baptizing believers only. He baptized himself and others by applying water to the forehead. (Encyclopedia Americana © 1995 )

Baptistsrotestant Christian denomination. Baptists permit baptism of believers only (as opposed to infant baptism) and practice baptism by immersion. The Baptist churches originated amid members of the English Separatist (Independents) movement and began (c1608) with the teachings of John Smyth, or Smith (c1570-1612). (Concise Dictionary of World History © 1986)

Baptists, denomination of Protestant Christians holding that baptism is only for believers and solely by immersion, begun (c.1608) by English SEPARATISTS in Amsterdam ( The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third Edition Copyright © 1994,)

History of the Baptist Churches, In Holland a group of English separatists, led by John Smyth...formed c.1608 in Amsterdam the first English Baptist congregation. Smyth baptized first himself, then the others. In 1611 certain members of this congregation returned to London and established a church there. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright ©1993, )

 

That is one popularly held view. You will find it in encyclopedias. But it is not common among many Baptists. The reason: We do not believe Baptists are Protestants, but existed long before the "Reformers" had nothing to do with the Reformation, and always throughout history had been "protesting" against the corruptions of the RCC, even as the Montantists did.
We have already proven to you that there were groups of like faith and order (who have been slandered by the RCC and others) that have existed (though called by different names) ever since the time of Christ. The Montanists and Waldenses are good examples of this. Montanists existed as early as 150 A.D. just shortly after John the Apostle died. You will do your best to slander their doctrine. However it is mostly discipline that you don't like.
If a sect doesn't allow remarriage is that something to condemn upon? It is not a change of doctrine, but of discipline. The RCC believes in doctrines of demons not allowing marriage at all. They cannot point fingers here. Oh, the hypocrisy!
It is not the name "Baptist" that is found, but rather the doctrine. The RCC cannot do that. What they do find is murderers, drunkards, pedophiles, and as the Bible describes:

...the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Re 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

A very good description of the RCC indeed.
Holy? no! Murderous? Indeed!

As Carroll stated:
"If fifty million died of persecution during the 1,200 years of what are called the "Dark Ages," as history seems positively to teach--then they died faster than an average of four million every one hundred years. That seems almost beyond the limit of, human conception. As before mentioned, this iron hand, dripping with martyr blood, fell upon Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Petro Brussians, Albigenses, Waldenses and Ana-Baptists--of course much harder upon some than others."

 

DHK. the population alone in that area was not even close to the numbers put out by the anti-Catholics. Just a bunch of twisted history to slander against Christ's Church by those that really want it their way, not Christ's way. Jesus only left us with his One Church formed on His Apostles. Our Holy Bible tells us that.{ Eph.4: 3-6 } { Matt. 28:18- 20 } { John 17:20-21, John 20:21 } John 21: 15-17 } Jesus said that in listening to His church we are listening to Him see Luke 10: 16.

 

Check your almanacs. He is speaking over a span of 1200 years and he is speaking of averages. Certainly there was enough people.

You don't have any chance at all in proving your statement.
Here is what I want you to do.
First prove that Peter ever went to Rome.
Then prove that he ever was a bishop/Pope of Rome.
Then prove the RCC claim that he was there for 25 years.
Barring the latter claim how many years was he there?

If you can't prove these things then your whole claim of Peter being the first pope and the RCC being the first church founded on Peter is all bogus!

 

Brother DHK,

If Brother Lakeside can prove all the things mentioned you above I will cease debating him, but of course we know he can't, nor can anyone else.

 

DHK, first of all if you check all the supposed murdered people in that part of the World you will find that the civil courts murdered more than the Catholic Church, so the combined numbers could never come even close to the total population in that area that anti-Catholics say.
About Peter being Rome, if you had a pastor and he had a high priced reward placed on his head by Isis , for just an example, would you broadcast your pastor's whereabouts ? Also I'm sure you would not write" letters" to your Pastor, especially when all Christians are being persecuted by the Roman soldiers/Isis , now would you ?

 

And your lead reference source is the Catholic Encyclopedia. Real objective, unbiased source there.

 

If Peter was the Pope there would be evidence. If you can't provide evidence then it is obvious that he was not the first Pope.
The first recorded Pope in history was Leo, long after Peter. So your religion is founded on myth not fact.

 

No only was Peter not the first pope, Peter was not a monarchial bishop, as there were no such in Peter's time. Further, to have been the "bishop" of Rome, one would think it would have been necessary to have been in Rome, and to have lived and died there. There is no such evidence regarding Peter. In fact, there is evidence that peter died and was buried in Jerusalem. The RCC is a sham, leading misguided sheep down the primrose path of falsehood.

 

Rebel,when I was a Baptist for a few years, I can honestly say I never thought about Peter being in Rome it all. I figured the Catholic Church was corrupt and wrong on most major issues, and therefore never spent any time actually learning what they taught.

I believed the whole "petros/petra" explanation. It made sense to me, better yet it allowed me to continue in my ignorance. So when you tell someone something they don't want to hear they look no further.

Now,back as a Catholic, I'm so amazed at how gullible and ignorant I was. Of course the Catholic Church is the true Church...not because I say so, or because priests and bishops say so, or because the pope says so...but because Christ himself says so.

http://home.inreach.com/~bstanley/how.ht... [ Sorry, I can't connect to it now]

ADDED: Using other "rock" bible verses does not take away from or change the meaning of the words of Christ when he spoke to Peter. He gave Peter a new name (originally called Simon) meaning "rock" he then said "on this rock (meaning Peter) I will build my Church." Can't get any clearer than that.

As to those who claim he gave the Church to Peter but not those who he passed it on to, that makes no sense. Peter was divinely authorized to be the head of the Church. Christ would not then leave his Church abandoned after Peter died.

ADDED: Jesus was not talking about himself being the "rock." Gramatical sentence structure alone rules this out. He says "You are Kephas (Peter in Aramaic) and on this kephas I build my Church." This sentence cannot allow the subject to change to Jesus...it just doesn't work no matter how you try to twist it. This is the nonsense I was talking about, that I easily bought when I was Protestant. Not because it makes sense but because it told me what I wanted the truth to be. Didn't matter that it wasn't the truth.

As far as Rome being the seat of the Church, the seat has to be somewhere. The Church is not a geographical location, but an organic, living breathing organism


Understanding Matthew 16:18 depends upon an understanding of the biblical languages.

Jesus said "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church."

Now, Jesus spoke ARAMAIC. Thus, what He was saying is: "You are Kepha (rock) and on this kepha (rock) I will build my Church."

Clearly, He meant Peter and nothing else. Many Protestants and other anti-Catholics have an incorrect understanding of the biblical languages, saying that the Greek word for rock is "petra" which is a huge stone, and the word Jesus uses for Peter is "petros" which means a little pebble.

The first big problem w/ the Protestant translation is, Jesus was not speaking in Greek! This renders all those biblical commentaries about "petra" invalid and useless.

The second big problem is, most of the books of the New Testament were TRANSLATED into Greek for the Hellinistic world, but many were WRITTEN in Aramaic. In fact, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us (kepha).


All I can say is if Jesus was referring only to Peters faith and was not declaring him as head of his Church then why is Peter given the Keys to the Kingdom and told what ever you loosen and bind on Earth are done in Heaven. Either I as a Catholic am unable to understand plain spoken words or I'm blinded by lies and refuse to accept what is truth.

By the way Jesus Christ is the founder of the true church Not St. Peter. Peter was the first Pope it was left to him by Christ.

Protestants make a big deal over the fact that two different words for "rock" appear in the Greek. ( so presumably the rock, Peter, is different from the rock on which the church will be built.) But the reason for the two words is purely grammatical: the Greek word for rock is grammatically feminine, and matthew did not want to write that Jesus was giving Simon a female name! (Actually, it is more complicated than that, as Simon was already known in the Christian world as either Cephus or Petros before the gospel was written down. Paul uses both of these names in his letters, when he refers to Simon Peter.)

Jesus did not speak in Greek. He spoke in
Aramaic. And Aramaic does not have grammatical gender. The only way in which Jesus could have said these words is:

You are Cepha, and on this Cepha I will build my church.
The name Cephus is a greek version of Cepha,the aramaic word for rock. The name Petros is a greek masculine version of the Greek word for rock. both names were coined by Greek-speaking Christians as the gospel spread and the word "Cepha" had to somehow be translated into a Greek masculine name.

 

Every single objection you have made can be answered. Please understand that we have on our board some of the most educated Greek scholars you will find, that have been studying the Bible in its original languages for many years. I know some Greek and am able to explain those answers to you, but we can have it verified by others if you wish.

Doctrine is not your only problem, however.

It is history. You are beating around the bush. If you cannot demonstrate that Peter was ever in Rome, or the bishop or Rome, or the bishop of the church at Rome for any extended period of time then your whole theory and all the perpetuated lies of the RCC falls apart. And that is the truth.

It is a simple thing to do. I can prove that he wasn't in Rome for any length of time (if at all) just by using scripture. Other sources gives credence to the view that he never made it there at all.

 

DHK, I asked Stephen K. Ray whether Peter went to Rome and died there, he said it is inconsequential. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.

On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

So, if Peter got there only much later, that might have something to say about who his legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishop of Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peter’s successor), but it would say nothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that the papacy was instituted by Christ in the first place.

No, somehow the question, while interesting historically, doesn’t seem to be crucial to the real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholic organizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it.

“Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.

 

It is not inconsequential. If the RCC has been teaching that Peter was the first Pope ruling from Rome for 25 years then they have been perpetuating a lie and the RCC has been fabricated upon a lie. Peter is not and never was the first Pope. The RCC is built on a lie.
And yes, the evidence is more toward Paul being the first "apostle" to go to Rome, though some of his helpers are mentioned in the 16th chapter of his epistle.
It seems that the church was started in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla.

Peter didn't have a successor. He died an untimely death as a martyr.

There was no papacy established by Christ. Can't you see this is all a myth; a lie perpetuated by the RCC? The only ones that believe Peter was ever in Rome as a Pope is the RCC.

There is no evidence that Peter got there at all, except to die possibly.
Peter never ruled any church in Rome. Period! That is a myth. You don't have any proof. On your part it is all speculation.

Well, yeah--if your religion is based on a lie how does that make you feel?
Peter was not the first Pope; he was not a pope at all.
The first recognized pope did not come until the fifth century--Leo I.

First there is no proof he was in Rome.
The church was not built on Peter.
Next, most of your doctrines are built on man and not the Bible.
Many of them are just plain superstition like transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration as well as the various doctrines surrounding Mary.

 

Hello Frodo, just wanted to say that many here claim to be Baptists, the problem is that there are so many kinds of Baptists one might get confused. But I did just want to say I am a Baptist and didn't see anything in the OP that might explain the varying responses in multitude your post has achieved.

Very impressive, my friend, keep up the good work.

And by the way, your Uncle has been acting very odd of late, perhaps you should have a word with him...




God bless.

 

DHK, all early Christian writings, including those Christians in the catacombs, point to Peter being the first pope or bishop of Rome. As I previous mention, the price on bishop Peter's head was a great reward for the Roman soldier. The Roman Christians guarded the secrecy of their first bishop of Rome just as those Catholics being murdered today by Isis.

 

Here is a timeline of the RCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church

There is not much of Peter in there that could give any credence to Peter being a bishop in Rome.