I didn't realize the Anabaptists had access to manuscripts. And I do know that there are no denominations in the Bible, but you must agree: If the apostles were to follow a modern denomination, it would be the Fundamental Baptists.
55 comments
So you admit that th Apostles were not in fact IFBs? 'Cause you just said that if they "were" to follow a modern denomination, meaning they did not follow a modern denomination, meaning that the Christianity they practiced must therefore be different from the version practiced by the IFB chirches.
There goes your claim that the IFB was instituted and set by Jesus and the Apostles.
Given that we have 4 different Gospels giving 4 different denominations in the Bible (allegedly) from 4 different apostles, I'd say we'd end up with at least 11.
And not one would be Baptist, Fundamentalist or not.
I'd nominate this one for a brown-noser award.
Ahem.
The apostle Thomas was very much a deist -- the Buddhists, Hindus, Brahmins and Jainists welcomed his tradition in India.
There's a story somewhere in the *real* Scripture about JC selling T. to an Indian merchant [to get him safely away from the Romans, imo. Loyal Gnostic as I am, I see this scene playing out with Thomas as JC's last apostolic hope.]
There might not've been any Christian denominations mentioned in the Bible, but Christian denominations sure as heck existed at the time the New Testament books were written!
Ever heard of the Gnostics, Paul? No? Of course not. They were the "losers" in the struggle for denominational supremacy. And as you know (or should know), history is written by the victors.
[ramblin']
Thomas founded the [Gnostic] Coptic church down in Egypt-land, and a similar sect in Syria.
JC didn't go bye-bye when the NT said, but according to *real* Scripture, he was active with his disciples for eleven years...he had a chance to see how the wind blew...the Rome faction would bulldoze the Gnostic Copts, with or without Thomas, so it was a proper leadership decision to send Thomas away to India.
Thomas gave every possible good excuse, and some lame ones as well...which is why he ended up sold for thirty pieces of silver, and started the journey very much against his will.
One might wonder how Deism equates with Gnosticism; my personal take is that the latter is Deism with a weighted psychic component.
C G Jung, anyone?
[/ramblin']
This statement can be generalize:
"If the apostles were to follow a modern denomination, it would be whatever the hell I am."
Yes, and they would without a doubt vote Republican, drive Jeep Grand Cherokees, live in the suburbs with a wife, son, daughter, and golden retriever, and be white and blue-eyed
They might, but I kinda fucking doubt it. Hell, the original twelve combined aren't even quoted by you fundies near as often Paul who wasn't even an apostle. And you guys are FAR too political, too self-righteous, and not giving enough in your Christian charity and love of your fellow man. Personally I think that the apostles would consider Fundamentalists Baptists as the modern day Pharisees, smug and hypocritical dogmatists, and I KNOW that they would see the televangalists as the modern moneylenders that turned the Temple into a den of thieves.
@Papabear:
I hold the opinion that two factors contributed to their Jewishness in the early days: JC advised them to "keep the Sabbath", but only as camouflage while among the Pharisees; Paul's whole intent was to steer the Christians back toward Judaism. Paul seems to have been the prime advocate of the "second coming"...imo, the proleptic myth which fucked Xianity(TM) for all time.
I'm not arguing with you, though.
Paul, I'd really doubt it. If Jesus were to come down to Earth, you fundies would crucify him, because you wouldn't recognise him as your Saviour.
The apostles were Jewish. Hard as it may be for fundies to believe it, Judaism still exists! There was a considerable rift between two views in early Christianity: those following Paul who said obedience to Mosaic law was not necessary, and those following James who said it was. Paul won - he was the better "salesman" - so his version is what got recorded in the NT (Romans, Corinthians, etc.). That's why fundamentalist Baptists eat shrimp, drive cars on Saturday and don't get circumcised. Fundie Baptists almost never listen to Jesus when they can find something in the writings of that misogynist pedant, Paul, that they like better.
@Puck
Darn, I had forgotten about the recently translated Gospel of Judas.
So, that gives us 14 denominations That We Know Of claiming roots to the original Apostles...
And none were any kind of Baptist.
And they couldn't possibly be Fundamentalist Baptists, as the Fundamentalists weren't founded until the 1900's.
Yeah, forget that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That whole Mary Magdalene thing was just written in by Liberal commies who just wanted to persecute you guys, right?
I've spent primarily my whole life studying christianity, it's history, theology, culture, languages, etc, and I've narrowed it down to three denominations. 1. Eastern Orthodox. The reason for this is that they have existed since the beginning, and when the one church split in 1054, forming the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the Orthodox church kept to the earlier traditions, while the Catholic church changed a bunch of things. 2. Methodist. There is only one reason for this, and that's that the Methodist church contains all aspects of traditional and modern, liturgical and charismatic, conservative and libearl, eastern and western, philosophical and mystical aspects of christianity all in one church. 3. Mormonism. I'm dead serious about this. I believe, from studying the life of Joseph Smith, Jr., that Mormonism is sort of the modern descendants of a line in christianity that began with the Gnostics, and also contains the Cathars, Bogomils, Paulicians, and various other mystical sects. The IFB is far from any sort of 'true christianity'. The IFB is it's own religion, with or without the bible. They don't follow anything in there anyway.
Why don't you all call yourselves Not-Catholic Christians and be done with it? Once upon a recent time that was Protestant.
Baptists are even more recent. You like to pretend you're very old or even older but that's bullshit, John the Baptist church never happened. Baptist is a name derived from a ritual that many other churchs adopted, including the first, Catholics.
"I didn't realize the Anabaptists had access to manuscripts."
Oh, they did. Catholic manuscripts, scrolls or Catholic dogma literature. It's one thing to be wrong (Catholics) but it's even worse to be wrong totally out of context and historical literature (Baptists and ALL fundies)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
