Posted on 03/17/2016 2:42:08 AM PDT by RaceBannon
And Southern Baptist, to boot!
Etymology of the word “Man”
Old English man, mann “human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero; servant, vassal,” from Proto-Germanic *manwaz (cognates: Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna “man”), from PIE root *man- (1) “man” (cognates: Sanskrit manuh, Avestan manu-, Old Church Slavonic mozi, Russian muzh “man, male”).
Plural men (German Männer) shows effects of i-mutation. Sometimes connected to root *men- “to think” (see mind), which would make the ground sense of man “one who has intelligence,” but not all linguists accept this. Liberman, for instance, writes, “Most probably man ‘human being’ is a secularized divine name” from Mannus [Tacitus, “Germania,” chap. 2], “believed to be the progenitor of the human race.”
So I am as he that seythe, `Come hyddr John, my man.’ [1473]
Sense of “adult male” is late (c. 1000); Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind and manslaughter. Similarly, Latin had homo “human being” and vir “adult male human being,” but they merged in Vulgar Latin, with homo extended to both senses. A like evolution took place in Slavic languages, and in some of them the word has narrowed to mean “husband.” PIE had two stems: *uiHro “freeman” (source of Sanskrit vira-, Lithuanian vyras, Latin vir, Old Irish fer, Gothic wair) and *hner “man,” a title more of honor than *uiHro (source of Sanskrit nar-, Armenian ayr, Welsh ner, Greek aner).
Saint Patrick a Baptist! Not!
One bit of fiction that makes it way across the Internet this time of year is "St. Patrick A Baptist!" by Dr. L. K. Landis. Dr. Landis, for whatever reason, wants to convert Saint Patrick from Catholic to Baptist post-mortem. Several Baptist church sites and bloggers have discovered Dr. Landis' fictional account of Saint Patrick and have posted it to their sites without any concern for historical accuracy. How any true Baptist could believe that Saint Patrick was a Baptist is almost beyond explanation. I suspect the believers are Landmark Baptists, who still believe the long discredited Trail of Blood is an accurate account of Baptist history.
So, on behalf of all the Catholics and Baptists who know the truth regarding Saint Patrick, I offer this meager apologetic against Saint Patrick being a Baptist.
"Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers - ... in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant"
All of Patrick's writings consist of just two surviving documents. Not only do they not record baptising infants, they also do not record baptising only professed believers. They do record baptised individuals being confirmed and annointed with chrism, both clearly Baptist distinctives, are they not?
"Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only - This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today."
First, nothing in either of the two surviving works by Patrick mentions baptism by immersion. Second, Catholics have also baptised by immersion since the days of the apostles. Read the Didache or Cyril of Jerusalem. Catholics are filling the immersion pool at the Catholic Church I attend for the adult believer baptisms at the Easter Vigil Mass. Perhaps they too are Baptists?
"Number Three: In Church Government, St. Patrick Was A Baptist - Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops,"
These would be Baptist bishops?
"Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc. - Patrick never attended one council..."
Only one church council was held during Patrick's lifetime and it was at Chalcedon. Perhaps British Rail was on strike and prevented Patrick's attendance?
"Number Five: In Doctrine - In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system."
In all two of his writings this is largely correct, except for Patrick's mention of Catholic distinctives like confirmation, chrism, monks and nuns, purgatory, etc.
"Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist - From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance."
No, we don't, as this subject is not discussed in either surviving document. We do know from his Confession that Patrick had an altar and that communion tables are not mentioned.
"Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation - Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood."
That's also false as neither the Eucharist nor transubstantiation are discussed in either of Patrick's two surviving documents. Also the elements of the Eucharist being only "pictures" is an unbiblical belief per Isaiah 55:11 and Genesis 1:3. That said, I will heartedly agree with any and all Baptists who wish to claim that their communion is a picture or symbol.
"Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities - St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches."
The Baptist sect didn't exist until around 1600. There were no Baptist churches in existence during Patrick's lifetime. No credible Baptist historian makes that claim. I recommend Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick. McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College, was swept up by "Trail of Blood" as an undergraduate but in his later investigations into Baptist history discovered them to be historically untenable.
"It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced.
I'm sure Dr. Landis was firmly convicted, but the author's evidence is not sufficient and does not bear up to scrutiny. Baptists have many things in their short history to be proud of, but Patrick of Ireland is not one of them.
I would encourage everyone to read Patricks surviving writings for themselves:
Confession
The Letter to Corotocus
Your an unadulterated idiot.
He was a 7th Day Baptist to boot!!!
Always check your grammar when you're calling someone an idiot.
He probably was not a formal Baptist but he was neither a Catholic either. IF he had been a Catholic, his letters would have full of the praises of Rome and other attributes of Catholicism. He was in all likelihood a run of the mill Christian. Sort of like the kind Paul converted. Strong in the doctrines of the Bible without being restricted by a denomination.
**St Patrick was a Baptist!!**
This is false.
Actually, Constantine founded the Constantinople Church, not the Romish Church :)
Run of the mill Christians at the time were Catholic. His father was a deacon, his grandfather a priest. Patrick himself studied at Auxerre received tonsure at Lérins Abbey and was ordained by Saint Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre. In his Confession he writes:
I am greatly God's debtor, because he granted me so much grace, that through me many people would be reborn in God, and soon a after confirmed, and that clergy would be ordained everywhere for them.This is hardly the biography or writings of a Baptist. Additionally, there is no historical evidence, contrary to the inventions of some Baptists, of a proto-Baptist or otherwise Protestant church that existed at the time parallel to the Catholic Church. If Patrick was a Christian at that time and place, then he was a Catholic.And:
And I gave back again to my Christian brethren and the virgins of Christ and the holy women the small unasked for gifts that they used to give me or some of their ornaments which they used to throw on the altar.
And:
And I went about among you, and everywhere for your sake, in danger, and as far as the outermost regions beyond which no one lived, and where no one had ever penetrated before, to baptize or to ordain clergy or to confirm people.
As for the lack of Catholic reference, beyond ordaining clergy and confirming people, it must be pointed out that we have only two letters from him, one of which is a letter of condemnation. It is hardly surprising that there is little formal theology to be found.
In your world, a Christian in early times was a Catholic and only a Catholic. This flies against the teachings of the Bible. None of Pauls converts were Catholic. None of the Apostles were Catholic. Christians were simply Christians. Followers of the Word and Christ. There were Christians from the time of Christ until the present. I do not claim Patrick was a Baptist. It matters not to me. But I do not affirm he was a Catholic either without proof and apparently there is none.
That’s the best you got??
Our annual comic relief from the usual suspects.
Let us put to rest the claim that Catholicism is opposed to Bible Christian. Catholics are as committed to fidelity to the Bible as are Protestants. Where we differ is in its interpretation, not in its authority. Catholics see the Catholic Church in the Bible as clearly as Protestants see theirs.
None of Pauls converts were Catholic. None of the Apostles were Catholic. Christians were simply Christians. Followers of the Word and Christ. There were Christians from the time of Christ until the present.
This is matter of dispute. From a Catholic understanding of the Bible the early apostolic Christians could be nothing but Catholic.
I do not claim Patrick was a Baptist. It matters not to me. But I do not affirm he was a Catholic either without proof and apparently there is none.
Absent evidence to the contrary it can be safely assumed that Patrick held what were the normative beliefs of Christians at the time. Despite any disagreement we might have about the nature of the early apostolic church, the nature of the 5th century church is well known. This was the age of St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Peter Chrysologus, St. Vincent of Lérins, Pope St. Leo the Great, etc. The Church had already held four Ecumenical Councils. Patrick himself writes that he was a bishop, that he ordained clergy and confirmed people, and that he used an altar. Against this there is no evidence that he departed from the normative Christianity of the age which was Catholic. Nor is there any evidence that there existed those whom you describe as "simply Christians" in opposition to the general Catholic population. It is simply a fact of history that Evangelical Protestantism is an invention of the 16th century.
Aren't you supposed to be in the corner facing the wall with a tall conical hat on?
**How then can it have been “an embryo” 350 years later? That’s one long gestation period!**
Actually it was almost 300 yrs of well established false teachings. Paul, Peter, John, and Jude all warned of false teaching being present in their day, and that it would be a constant problem to be wary of.
Neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles EVER used the phrase: God the Son.
The apostles took the lead of Jesus Christ in not glorifying Mary, the earthly mother of the Son of God. After the upper room outpouring of the Holy Ghost, her name is never mentioned again in the scriptures.
The truth has always had a light somewhere. I remember reading about the Inquisition, in an old Americana Encyclopedia (about 1960 edition). The topic was written by a monsignor iirc. I was struck by the part where he wrote of a Catholic missionary (don’t recall his name either), that had ventured into what would be northern Germany. He came across certain “unwar-like people” that could quote the entire gospel of John.
As the written Word was scarce, memorization was a big help in spreading the Word.
I know nothing of certainty about Patrick, so I stick with the scriptures for original truth. It’s the rock solid way, and always has been.
"34 And as he spoke these things, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them; and they were afraid, when they entered into the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son; hear him." Luke 9:34-35
God The Father called Jesus His beloved son. Who do YOU suggest Jesus is?
"The apostles took the lead of Jesus Christ in not glorifying Mary, the earthly mother of the Son of God. After the upper room outpouring of the Holy Ghost, her name is never mentioned again in the scriptures."
Aside from the significant role Mary played that is specifically mentioned in Scripture, Scripture itself says there are many things not recorded.
IIRC, cousin F.W. told me that a long time ago — that “Saint” Patrick was Baptist.
**God The Father called Jesus His beloved son. Who do YOU suggest Jesus is?**
I agree with the scriptures. Jesus Christ called himself the Son of God. The apostles called him the Son of God. I call him the Son of God.
Are you Massachusetts the Wyrd bio ful araed? Or are you Wyrd bio ful araed of Massachusetts? (sorry, don’t know how to type your name exactly as shown)
**Scripture itself says there are many things not recorded.**
That doesn’t allow us the right to alter the definitions that the scriptures have set forth.
Titles have definitions.
The Snakes of St Patrick
Resurrection Miracles Performed by St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland
ST PATRICK, BISHOP, CONFESSOR, APOSTLE OF IRELAND—A.D. 464
St Patrick's Confession (The Words of the Real Patrick)
St. Patrick
St Patrick kicked out of school
St. Patrick
Apostle to the Irish (Who is the REAL St. Patrick ?)
Patrick: Deliverer of the Emerald Isle
Breastplate of St Patrick [Poem/Prayer]
Confessions of St. Patrick (In his own words)
Feast of Saint Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland
St. Patrick(Happy St. Patrick's Day!)
St Patrick's 'day' moved to March 15th (in 2008)
St. Patrick’s Breastplate Prayer
St. Patrick (Erin Go Bragh!)
History of St. Patrick's Day
Patrick: The Good, the Bad, and the Misinformed
The Lorica of St. Patrick
Orthodox Feast of +Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland
St. Patrick
St. Patrick's Breast Plate
Orthodox Feast of St Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland, March 17
The Lorica of St. Patrick
To Truly Honor Saint Patrick, Bishop and Confessor
Apostle to the Irish: The Real Saint Patrick
St. Patrick
Saint Patrick [Apostle of Ireland]
Was St. Patrick Catholic?....Of Course!! [Happy St. Pat's Day]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.