8 of 42 people found the following review helpful
She doesn't know her facts many errors.,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Myths, Legends, and Lore of Ireland (Hardcover)
Someone may ask, "How do you know there are many errors?" when I tell them I only read one chapter. The answer is because there were so many errors in the one chapter I did not need to read the rest of the book. I do not consider myself an expert on St. Patrick the Baptist but I have done considerable research on him. For instance Patrick was not catholic he was Baptist. There are many evidences to this fact. It is undeniable that he existed she even points to hard evidence herself while in an earlier breath questions whether he actually even existed.
With so many errors in one short chapter, I shudder to think what the rest of the book would contain. Especially if she got into areas where the reader does not know the facts. How would you know what she got right and what she didn't.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 14, 2012 7:21:39 AM PDT
I am confused. I haven't read the book yet, but St. Patrick was active in Ireland during the first half of the the first century. Baptists came into being in the early 1600s. How is St. Patrick a Baptist? In 400AD there was only one Christian church.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 7:32:18 AM PDT
Amazon Customer says:
^ Absolutely true. The original rating was totally unfounded.
Posted on Mar 14, 2012 7:12:03 PM PDT
John Marinville says:
St. Patrick lived in the 5th Century, and the Baptist Church was founded in the 17th Century. Yes, there are some who believe that the Baptist Church has existed, distinct from the Catholic Church, since the time of Christ. But this idea dates to just the 1930's, so it doesn't carry much weight.
So, yes. It does appear that there are a lot of mistakes. But they appear to be yours....
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 8:44:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 14, 2012 8:51:29 PM PDT
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2012 9:11:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 14, 2012 9:14:22 PM PDT
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2012 10:31:01 AM PDT
K. Iverson says:
I don't think you understand the term catholic (with a little 'c'). As a result, your review and further comments are full of errors. The word catholic is absolutely different than the term Catholic (capitalized).
I am sure that St. John felt he was a baptist (small 'b' to distinguish it from the denomination) and part of the following of the catholic church ('catholic' with little 'c' which is the universal all inclusive Christian church that first split into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches well after St. Patrick's time and then subsequently centuries later into all the other subgroups and denominations that include the Baptist). At no point did St. Patrick position himself as a separate from the catholic followers of Christ. If you are trying to to attribute St. Patrick as a Roman Catholic, you need to use capitalization which confers a very different meaning.
Further, using an old Baptist book as a source to reposition St. Patrick as a Baptist church follower makes as much sense as using the Book of Mormon as a general source document about Christianity. These are denominiation-specific writings adopted by a specific following, but not generally accepted by all of Christianity. Just because the book under review attributes St. Patrick as catholic (small 'c' - which is generally accepted by Christians) does not make the book full of errors because it doesn't jive with an ignorant member of a small group of the Christian follower's beliefs. St. Patrick is most certainly catholic as are all Christians.
A friend of mine who is baptist (and a preacher's kid) said that while he was aware that there are those who say that St. John the Baptist and others were Baptist (with a capital 'B'), this attribution is "dumb".
This book review is absolutely worthless - your comments that the book is full of errors is similiar to a Muslim commenting on errors in a Christian book it doesn't match with their Koranic beliefs.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2012 10:06:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2012 10:08:13 AM PDT
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2012 9:21:59 AM PDT
I would guess from this discussion, that the term Baptist in this form is referring to individual's interpretations of Christianity at the time and not the modern Baptist Church. It is certain that as the Christian church formed there were many interpretations, but I am unaware that any thought of themselves as separate sects. I will have to do more reading. Are there any texts besides the History of the Welch Baptists to refer to? It seems that getting all your "proof" from one book is not a good way to go.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2012 9:49:39 PM PDT
As I have already mentioned, they have not always been called Baptist by name but their doctrine has been distinctively Baptist i.e. Salvation as a gift by grace through faith alone. The assurance of immortality (eternal security). The rejection of infant baptism.
Regarding different sects there were different named sects before the New Testament scriptures were completed for instance the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation chapter 2.
Regarding other sources: How about one straight from St. Patrick "It is Christ who gave His life for thee (and) is He who speaks to thee. He has poured out upon us abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and assurance of immortality, who causes men to believe and become obedient that they might be the sons of God and joint heirs with Christ." Also the writings between Ignatius and Polycarp in A.D. 116 alude to Baptist doctrine albeit without name.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 8:15:46 AM PST
tiggrie AKA Sarah says:
"I am a 3rd generation Baptist Preacher and 2nd generation preachers kid but that doesn't make me anymore knowledgeable about Baptist History but, my study of Baptist history does. But with your little b big B scenario you will have to take that up with the Bible since it says "the Baptist" not "a baptist""
I'm fairly sure Koine Greek made no distinction between capital and minuscule letters, so this is a non-point.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›