Prayers To Mary

No, I am not changing my story. We have a misunderstanding between us.

When I said that the Ante-Nicene Fathers is the history of apostasy and that the apostasy began even before the New Testament was finished, in your mind (not mine) you believe that the Ante-Nicene Fathers is one and the same with New Testament Christianity and so you see a logical fallacy in what I said.

However, in my mind New Testament Christianity and the Ante-Nicene Father's are not comprehensive of each other. I see the Ante-Nicene Fathers as a separate branching out and not inclusive of New Testament Christianity but merely one aspect of it - apostate aspect.

Also, I see the Ante-Nicene Father's a growing apostasy that comes to full bloom in the time of Constantine. Hence, the roots of the Ante-Nicene Father's or the apostolic fathers is fairly orthodox with some seeds of apostate doctrine which gradually grow to full bloom by the time of Constantine.

 

The faulty Trail of blood.

However we find

note

There are problems with this quote

 

I understand what you are saying. You believe the Ante-Nicene fathers are an apostate branch of Christianity. What I'm asking you for, is evidence that there was more than one branch of Christianity. Surely the Ante-Nicene fathers would have written about or objected to this other branch of Christianity, the branch you believe is the true biblical branch. But there is no evidence that such a branch existed. The Ante-Nicene fathers mention all sorts of other groups that they considered heretical, but nowhere do they describe a heretical-in-their-opinion group that sounds anything like your idea of biblical Christianity.

How do you explain that?

 

It is found among those whom the Secularized state church condemned as "heretics."

 

Let's see some quotes. What did they name this heresy, if it really existed? What did they say about it, if it really existed?

 

So what yu are saying is that these servants did the wrong thing going to Jesus mother for a request and again Jesus Mother was wrong speaking to them?

 

Your research is faulty. Carolinne, White, PhD., Oxford University researched this quote and presented her findings under the title "Tracing the Cardinal Hosius 'Baptist Quote'. She is the head of the Oxford Latin Department.

Her own literal translation goes as follows:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were ponounced heretics TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO and deserving of capital punishement. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing."

Carroll had another source of translation. However, the point Carroll was making is that Hosius acknowledge their existence over twelve hundred years ago.

 

Whoever you are quoting ineptly trying to cast aspersions on Cardinal Hosius's admissions is the one who has problems.

From the title page of the 1567 English edition of Hosius's Of the Express Word of God:

 

drbentownsend.com/Documents/HosiusQuoteInBaptistBooks.pdf

 

Nope I read her work and its still faulty and I'll tell you why.

She agrees that

Also she has concluded that

further

Now what does Hosius actually say?

So we know he didn't use the term Baptist but Anabapist but only in the general sense in which all re-baptizers were anabaptist not a particular one sect. Note this is because

thus

therefore the quote

becomes misleading (because it seems there is a trace back to Augustine when in fact when you read the next passage

naming unrelated sects save that they all rebaptize. thus he is being general to all rebaptizers. Thus

What is often ignored from the same letter is this

indeed this is proof that

therefore to put it succinctly we can say

You couldn't have believed I wouldn't have searched this all the way down.

 

It has been shown that the quote is inaccurate in the trail of blood. That the text it refers to does not exist and what he does say is not declaritive of modern baptist existing before the reformation. That magazine quote is wrong. Search for it yourself.

 

P. 49, Hosius's The Hatchet of Heresies (1565):

 

Where is his work Apud Opera? Its made up. You'll not find it. And I doubt even that quote due to the source. Where is his actual quote. Where is his actual statement? You do not provide it. Quote from the source not the chop job of a magazine. and if you want more proof read my post 33

 

The quote exists. There is far too much evidence for you to come on the board and willy nilly deny that it just does not exist. I also gave you a reference that it exists. Whether Hosius said it in a rebuttal or in praise doesn't matter. What does matter is that he acknowledged their existence. He also called them anabaptists, another important point.
Ana-baptist--to baptize again. It was a name given in disdain, but given to those who baptized infants (that had been baptized as infants) again, once they had professed Christ as Savior. Then they baptized them by immersion according to the dictates of the Bible.

 

I've just shown you in post 33 how it was mistranslated and wrongly interpreted. And from the correct source not some fictional source as listed in the trail of blood.

 

Apud is not a title, it is a citation word, like Ibid.

 

My post (apparently you didn't read it) was in #32. It is reliable, and I can give you many more. Most of your sources are stained with the poison of the RCC pen. They like to cover up their mistakes. But the quote stands. I never went to "The Trail of Blood." I used other sources. Again there is too much evidence for you to ignore.