Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Trail of Blood is still horse manure though.
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.
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.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).
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.
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?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?
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.On the tombstones of the Anabaptists?
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.
Was the Pope crucified for you?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
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?
Some splits were about baptism, or spiritual gifts, or the Sabbath, or the color of carpet, etc.
It was a joke... But some church splits have happened over something as trivial, such as the color of the hymnals- no joke.The color of carpet?
You learned that in an academic setting?
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.
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.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?
It was a joke... But some church splits have happened over something as trivial, such as the color of the hymnals- no joke.
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 use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?