Which denomination is the right one?

[ViaCrucis]

Sorry.

I don't believe that one bit.

I got good -- (okay, fair) -- grades in "rudimentary history," and I never heard anything that went against (or for) the information contained in that book.

It just wasn't taught.



No comment.

That's nice.

Trail of Blood is still horse manure though. What you believe is irrelevant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

From where I'm sitting, the question is backwards. The better question is not which single denomination is the right one, it's which denominatons are the wrong ones. There doesn't seem to be a single denomination that has an exclusive claim to the Christian legacy, though there are several who claim they are. But there are plenty of denominations that do not appear to have any genuine claim on it, and many of those churches operate in a spirit of division rather than the true Christian spirit of unity in diversity. So while I don't believe there is a single worldly faction of Christ worshippers who are the true body of Christ, I do recognize that there are some threads of Christian thought that are best avoided. There are many churches in which Christ is found and worshipped in spirit and truth, and it's definitely worth asking whether the church you're in does so. Wherever two or three true believer's gather to worship in Christ's name, He is with them. And wherever Christ is, there is the true church.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trail of Blood is still horse manure though.

That's what you've been taught, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wherever two or three true believer's gather to worship in Christ's name, He is with them. And wherever Christ is, there is the true church.

This is what we Independent Baptists believe as well.

Two or more Christians make up a church.

Two or more churches make up two or more churches (that is, not a denomination).

 

[Fervent]

This is what we Independent Baptists believe as well.

Two or more Christians make up a church.

Two or more churches make up two or more churches (that is, not a denomination).

Bound to have something right, I suppose. Though to be perfectly frank, Independent Baptists were one of the denominations that I had in mind of denominations to avoid due to strange doctrines about history and generally being exteremely divisive. There's simply no basis for the claim that independent baptists(or even baptists in general) teach what has been taught by Christians throughout Christian history. To use your story, independent baptists are one of the trees that the Leprachaun tied a ribbon around, since we can pinpoint in history a period in which the peculiars of the independent baptists sprung up.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's simply no basis for the claim that independent baptists (or even baptists in general) teach what has been taught by Christians throughout Christian history.

So it's all made up?

The Trail of Blood gives very specific names, dates, places, and events that would be hard to fabricate if it wasn't true.

 

[Fervent]

So it's all made up?

The Trail of Blood gives very specific names, dates, places, and events that would be hard to fabricate if it wasn't true.

There is no amount of specificity that is any harder or easier to fabricate. Names, dates, places, and events are all easy to make up, just look at how many works of fiction are extremely detail-specific. Where is the historical documentation of these names, dates, places, and events? What are the trail of bloods sources on which these supposed details are drawn? Where are the primary accounts?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no amount of specificity that is any harder or easier to fabricate. Names, dates, places, and events are all easy to make up, just look at how many works of fiction are extremely detail-specific. Where is the historical documentation of these names, dates, places, and events? What are the trail of bloods sources on which these supposed details are drawn? Where are the primary accounts?

On the tombstones of the Anabaptists?

 

[Fervent]

On the tombstones of the Anabaptists?

And prior to the 16th century? Few would dispute that modern baptists have an affiliation with the anabaptist movement, though more as a revival of the same errors since direct links between the two groups tend to be spurious. But even if we accept that baptist heritage can be traced back to the anabaptist movement, we're still 1500 years removed from Christ. I would also like to note that even if the particular people and events can be shown to exist in the historical record, the claims of the trails of blood are not met since there is the additional claim of doctrinal affinity between the historical groups and modern baptists which would have to be demonstrated. The donatists were not baptists, nor were the waldensians, nor were the Paulicans, nor any of the other groups that trails of blood tries to claim. So in order to demonstrate the historical accuracy of the trails of blood not only do the events mentioned have to actually be authenticated, but doctrinal affinity between the two groups must also be shown. The latter is of far more interest than the former, since as far as I can tell the earliest historical evidence of something resembling baptist doctrines is from about 500 years ago. Though considering your username, I'm hardly surprised that something that seems to originate less than 500 years ago is taken to be authentic to the faith that began 2000 years ago, rather than being more like one of the trees the Leprechaun wrapped its ribbon around in your earlier analogy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's what you've been taught, isn't it?

No, it's what I know because I actually read and study history for myself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

The donatists were not baptists, nor were the waldensians, nor were the Paulicans, nor any of the other groups that trails of blood tries to claim.

If you read the book, can you tell me why the Anabaptists went under these names?

Or are you just mimicking what academia is telling you?

 

[TheCabinetGuy]

Each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or " I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:12-13

Was the Pope crucified for you?
Was Luther crucified for you?
Was Calvin crucified for you?
Was Wesley crucified for you?
Was Miller crucified for you?
Fill in the blank...

In my hometown, there were only 4 churches nearby to choose from. But when I moved to Belton, MO I was overwhelmed with all the different churches to choose from. I knew that they couldn't all be right. Made me start studying church history...

Some splits were about baptism, or spiritual gifts, or the Sabbath, or the color of carpet, etc. but the biggest thing is a disconnect with the Jewish roots of the faith.

Jesus is Jewish, the Bible was written by Jews, and Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism called the Messianics or the followers of "The Way."

If you are blessed to have a Messianic synagogue near you, that would be my suggestion. As long as they aren't Sacred Namers, or teaching weird Kabbalah stuff (Jewish mysticism/ gnosticism), or using the writings of the Pharisees such as the Talmud as authoritative.

If you happen to be in Kansas City, Or HaOlam Messianic Congregation is a great choice. Was going there for several years until I moved to Texas.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's what I know because I actually read and study history for myself.

That explains it all then.

These historians that feed you your information, then test you on it, where did they get their information?

 

[dzheremi]

That explains it all then.

These historians that feed you your information, then test you on it, where did they get their information?

If they're good historians, from primary and sometimes secondary (e.g., translated) sources. One place they would not be getting it from is conspiratorial claptrap like "The Trail of Blood" or anything like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some splits were about baptism, or spiritual gifts, or the Sabbath, or the color of carpet, etc.

The color of carpet?

You learned that in an academic setting?

 

[TheCabinetGuy]

The color of carpet?

You learned that in an academic setting?

It was a joke... But some church splits have happened over something as trivial, such as the color of the hymnals- no joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they're good historians, from primary and sometimes secondary (e.g., translated) sources.

No field work? no sweat equity?

One place they would not be getting it from is conspiratorial claptrap like "The Trail of Blood" or anything like that.

I see.

And since they didn't get it from there, you didn't either?

Is that correct?

 

[Fervent]

If you read the book, can you tell me why the Anabaptists went under these names?

Or are you just mimicking what academia is telling you?

I'm stating what I have gleaned from reading the historical sources, the fact is most of the groups didn't go under the names we know them by the names developed to describe the groups after the fact usually based on the most prominent figures in the movements. We have fairly good documentation of what these groups believed, and baptist distinctives aren't among their beliefs It's quite funny that you accuse me of "mimicking what academia is telling [me]" when your entire argument seems to be "it's written in this pamphlet from 1931, it can't be made up." So maybe rather than telling me to read what a single source claims about history, you should try to provide something from outside of that book that supports its claims. Otherwise it's just the author of the pamphlet's word against an overwhelming amount of historical evidence to the contrary, and I see no reason to give particular preference to what some baptist minister in the 20th century wrote about groups from the 4th-16th century, especially not over and against sources that are far closer historically.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was a joke... But some church splits have happened over something as trivial, such as the color of the hymnals- no joke.

Let me ask you a personal question, Guy.

And, of course, you don't have to answer.

I'm not trying to be belittling or anything.

I'm glad you're here posting.

But for the record, you said this:

In my hometown, there were only 4 churches nearby to choose from. But when I moved to Belton, MO I was overwhelmed with all the different churches to choose from. I knew that they couldn't all be right. Made me start studying church history...

Were you Messianic before you moved to Belton?

It's hard for me to wrap my head around a town "overwhelming" someone with "all different churches to choose from," if one has already made up his mind which denomination is the right one.

When my wife and I go on vacation, we phone ahead from our hotel room to different Independent Baptist churches and ask them if they are KJVO.

If they aren't, we won't go there.

And we'll never come [back] to a church that has supplanted "Blood" with "Cross" in its hymnals.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm stating what I have gleaned from reading the historical sources, the fact is most of the groups didn't go under the names we know them by the names developed to describe the groups after the fact usually based on the most prominent figures in the movements.

I can't fully understand this sentence.

But it looks like you hit on the right answer:

"The most prominent figures in the movement."

Do you know what would have happened to any church back then who put "Baptist" or "Anabaptist" on their name, and the Catholics and Protestants found it?