In article <1114026678.801308.259120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
IKnowMoreThanYou says...

Note - I am top posting for various reasons

You forgot to add this line to your posting: © Copyright Sean Hyland 2000

You can double-check the page you swiped this article from, it (copyright
notice) is at the bottom of the webpage.

(http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/baptists/baptistorigins.html)

At least -try- to be a little honest and give credit where credit is due
rather
than just passing off everything you post as your own. Integrity is not a bad
thing to have, work on developing some, even though it appears to be a foreign
concept to you right now, you might even enjoy it!

HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

snip for bandwidth

So, in conclusion,it can be clearly seen that the Baptists as a group
have no historical lineage before the early 17th century. This is in
marked contrast to the Catholic church, which can trace its lineage all
the way back to the time of the Apostles.

HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

The origin of the Baptists dates from the early 17th century,

not appear before this time.

baptism except immersion of adults,

the early Baptists.

The first Baptist congregations appeared at the start of the
seventeenth century.

Subject: Re: Sects, Usurpers, and Wannabes 1 (History of the catholics)
From: Zadok <nobler@accesswave.ca
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.talk.creationism, alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christianity

HISTORY OF THE CATHOLICS

The origin of the catholic church can be traced to the Council of Nicea in
325AD. Here the Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine called together a council of
church leaders, to try and define and create one church as a unifying force
in his empire.

The founder of the General Baptist movement was John Smyth (1570-1612).
About 1606, he emigrated to Amsterdam, and in 1609, first rejected
infant baptism, although he retained affusion (pouring). Of course at
this point the sect decided they would all have to be re-baptized.
Smith re-baptized himself, then the rest of his congregation. (Note
that it is impossible to administer the sacrament of Baptism to
oneself; however, Baptists do not view baptism as a sacrament.) The
method used was pouring, immersion not becoming the required practise
until about 1650.

"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1114026678.801308.259120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

[stuff snipped for focus and brevity]

The founder of the General Baptist movement was John Smyth (1570-1612).
About 1606, he emigrated to Amsterdam, and in 1609, first rejected
infant baptism, although he retained affusion (pouring). Of course at
this point the sect decided they would all have to be re-baptized.
Smith re-baptized himself, then the rest of his congregation. (Note
that it is impossible to administer the sacrament of Baptism to
oneself; however, Baptists do not view baptism as a sacrament.) The
method used was pouring, immersion not becoming the required practise
until about 1650.

Just to interject a note here in the midst of your excellent post.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:43:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1114026678.801308.259120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

[stuff snipped for focus and brevity]

The founder of the General Baptist movement was John Smyth (1570-
1612).
About 1606, he emigrated to Amsterdam, and in 1609, first rejected
infant baptism, although he retained affusion (pouring). Of course at
this point the sect decided they would all have to be re-baptized.
Smith re-baptized himself, then the rest of his congregation. (Note
that it is impossible to administer the sacrament of Baptism to
oneself; however, Baptists do not view baptism as a sacrament.) The
method used was pouring, immersion not becoming the required practise
until about 1650.

Just to interject a note here in the midst of your excellent post.

Yo, Einstein, it is not his "excellent post" since he cut-n-pasted
from a copyrighted work with no remarks about the original author.

Gradually the catholic church in Rome, decided to usurp the Jerusalem
Church
founded by Jesus himself.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:43:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1114026678.801308.259120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

[stuff snipped for focus and brevity]

The founder of the General Baptist movement was John Smyth
(1570-1612).
About 1606, he emigrated to Amsterdam, and in 1609, first rejected
infant baptism, although he retained affusion (pouring). Of course
at
this point the sect decided they would all have to be re-baptized.
Smith re-baptized himself, then the rest of his congregation.
(Note
that it is impossible to administer the sacrament of Baptism to
oneself; however, Baptists do not view baptism as a sacrament.)
The
method used was pouring, immersion not becoming the required
practise
until about 1650.

Just to interject a note here in the midst of your excellent post.

Yo, Einstein, it is not his "excellent post" since he cut-n-pasted
from a copyrighted work with no remarks about the original author.

--
Ciao,
Falcon

x-no-archive: yes
On 20 Apr 2005 12:51:18 -0700, "IKnowMoreThanYou"
iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)
HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

The origin of the Baptists dates from the early 17th century,


Not true.

and does
not appear before this time.

Not true. We are in fact named for our namesake, one John the
Baptist, Jesus' older cousin.

Baptists of today reject all forms of
baptism except immersion of adults,

Not true.

yet this was not the practice of
the early Baptists.

The practice of the early Christians is what ought to concern us, and
the form taught by Jesus and the apostles is believers' immersion
baptism.

Any words to the contrary are OBVIOUS, self-evident lies. The very
Word of God is our only necessary proof.

The first Baptist congregations appeared at the start of the
seventeenth century.

Not true. The first Baptists were those who followed John the Baptizer
and who were baptized by him before Jesus appeared on the scene.

And kindly take your lies back to the RCC group.


As I and others have said a million times, Baptists and other non-RCC
born again believers who are serious Bible students (is there any
other kind?) do not make good Roman Catholics. We know our Bibles too
well.

"jw @yahoo.com>" <j w<no> wrote in message
news:kepd611cjvsv61bat2vfvk22fqv71djb12@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On 20 Apr 2005 12:51:18 -0700, "IKnowMoreThanYou"
iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)
HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

The origin of the Baptists dates from the early 17th century,


Not true.

and does
not appear before this time.

Not true. We are in fact named for our namesake, one John the
Baptist, Jesus' older cousin.

Not true. Your name came from the focus of your branch's origin - the
sacrament of baptism.

Baptists of today reject all forms of
baptism except immersion of adults,

Not true.

yet this was not the practice of
the early Baptists.

The practice of the early Christians is what ought to concern us, and
the form taught by Jesus and the apostles is believers' immersion
baptism.

Again, you have no evidence that they insisted on immersion.

Any words to the contrary are OBVIOUS, self-evident lies. The very
Word of God is our only necessary proof.

Thanks for the clarification of your words.



The first Baptist congregations appeared at the start of the
seventeenth century.

Not true. The first Baptists were those who followed John the Baptizer
and who were baptized by him before Jesus appeared on the scene.

Non-Christians then. And they were baptised with the baptism of Christ
later.

And kindly take your lies back to the RCC group.


As I and others have said a million times, Baptists and other non-RCC
born again believers who are serious Bible students (is there any
other kind?) do not make good Roman Catholics. We know our Bibles too
well.

Like Acts 19:1-5.

God bless,
Stephen

--

x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:20:25 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
skorsman@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"jw @yahoo.com>" <j w<no> wrote in message
news:kepd611cjvsv61bat2vfvk22fqv71djb12@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On 20 Apr 2005 12:51:18 -0700, "IKnowMoreThanYou"
iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)
HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

The origin of the Baptists dates from the early 17th century,


Not true.

and does
not appear before this time.

Not true. We are in fact named for our namesake, one John the
Baptist, Jesus' older cousin.

Not true. Your name came from the focus of your branch's origin - the
sacrament of baptism.

You have stones to tell me where my church's origin came from. In any
event,

1. baptism is not a "sacrament", since it imparts no grace whatever

2. even if your remark were true, that would STILL put our origins in
the 1st C.

Baptists of today reject all forms of
baptism except immersion of adults,

Not true.

yet this was not the practice of
the early Baptists.

The practice of the early Christians is what ought to concern us, and
the form taught by Jesus and the apostles is believers' immersion
baptism.

Again, you have no evidence that they insisted on immersion.

The Bible is FULL of immersions. I see NO references to ANY OTHER form
of baptism. And NO references to "baptizing" infants.

And I only said that they didn't INSIST on immersion;

it might not
have been possible to immerse new believers when they were forced
underground by the various Roman (and RCC) attempts to stamp out the
born-again Christians.

However, immersion believers's baptism is both taught in the NT, and
it REMAINS the preferred method.

Certainly someone who cannot be immersed should not be REFUSED
baptism, if his heart is in the right place.

But to "sprinkle" people when there is AMPLE water available for
immersion is INEXCUSABLE.

Any words to the contrary are OBVIOUS, self-evident lies. The very
Word of God is our only necessary proof.

Thanks for the clarification of your words.



The first Baptist congregations appeared at the start of the
seventeenth century.

Not true. The first Baptists were those who followed John the Baptizer
and who were baptized by him before Jesus appeared on the scene.

Non-Christians then. And they were baptised with the baptism of Christ
later.

Your point? It was the same form: Immersion of those who wished to
follow God and repent, followed by immersion of those who followed the
Christ and repented.

How you can go from that black-and-white (in scripture) model to the
"sprinkling of infants" is beyond reason.

It indicates that you are ONLY concerned with how Rome does things;
that you couldn't care less what Christ taught or practiced.

And kindly take your lies back to the RCC group.


As I and others have said a million times, Baptists and other non-RCC
born again believers who are serious Bible students (is there any
other kind?) do not make good Roman Catholics. We know our Bibles too
well.

Like Acts 19:1-5.

AC 19:1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the
interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and
asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy
Spirit."

AC 19:3 So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

AC 19:4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He
told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in
Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the
Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came
on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about
twelve men in all.



What about it?

Don't bother responding! I am well aware that you are a RCC, so that
you quote the Bible with NO CLUE what you are quoting.