to frank

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

bELOW IS MY ANSEER FOR ANOTHE HTREAD, sorry, this i why I do not use HTML tags often.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005

Answers

This is getting tiring. Why have you wasted days talking about how the coc had *anything* to do with former presbyterians and methodists in the United States when you NOW come back and say it may have been around from a.d. 33?

I strive for accuracy. It DID have soemthign to do with them, its not my fault you cannot read carefully.

I will re-explain.

The firts orginised Body called simpley "The Christian Church" was orginised by Stone and Cambell in the American fronteir. This does not make them the founders, and as I have repeatedly stated, the Church of Christs origins are complexe. Its not a simple matter of a foudner and foundign date, and will greatly depend on how you define the structure.

The stne-Cambel movement began in the American frientien int he ealry 19th Century, but the Restoration mvoement itsself existed ling before they where een born, and the groundwork for their movement was accomplished by such men as James O'Kelly, Ricde Haggert, and William Guirey.

The Philoosphy of John Locke, a Scottish Philosopher in the ;ate 1600's ( who dies in 1704) likewise play a vitsl role.

Before Lock, you also have the work of other resotrationary thinkers, such as Kimball, johnson, and Wycliffe with his Lollard society.

Precceeding wycliffe, a variety of indepoendant moements began in the mdidle ages, many of hwich are difficult to track, and none posisble to acuraltey pinpoint a starting date for.

The concept for Restoration was quiet old prior tot he stone-Cambel movement, and though they are credited with popularising and revitilising it, they did not found the movement, nor are the ideas they expressed stirclty their own.

Need I go into a formal Hisory, nameing names and daes, strtchign bakc to at leats the third century and possibely the first? will take a coule weeks but hey, I have time.

What a colossal waste of TIME! Which is it Zarove? You've been chewing my hide for a long time here, why don't you come out and say what date YOU BELIEVE THE COC STARTED, AND WHO STARTED IT!

No one started it. That's the point. Although the Stone-Cambel movement relaly is where most peopel place the general beginning of hte Boy for ocnveneince, their work as based on predessessing persons, datign back centuries.

So you see, there is no "Founder" and no "Founding date" that is applicable.

If you don't know, don't pretend you do. And most of all, if you aren't willing to commit to anything yourself, don't presume to instruct me.

I am commited to the truth and academic excellence. Again, as elaboraed above, I do KNOW the hisotry, and this is why I cant say " Such ad such foudned the Chruhc of christ at so-and-so a date". Its simpley not that simple.

"The beleifs are fxed enough" This is settled for me, so you can drop it too. For you "fixed enough" is GOOD enough. For me the interpretation of the Word must be PERFECT. You have your level of concern, I have mine.

I strive for a perfect interpretaiton as well. Its not my fault you assum that the churhc of Chirst, which is based on Scripture alone, woudl aupomaticllay belive a ariety of Doctorines, because you beleive that Sola Scriptura alone cnanot prodice a solidatity in tweahcing. Again, your prsumption is bias, not fact.

Have you ever even attended a Chruch of chirst? I've been to several, and all had identical teachings. Note, I said "Identical", not "Close enough but with soem differences". The fact that they ar eunifrom and teach EXACLTY THE SAME THING means that, as with your oswn desire, there is a stirving.

{except you beleive their belefs arent uniform not base don actual observation fo the Chruhc of Christ, but base don the presupposition that wthout a statment fo faiht, a reed, or a catechism, they cannot all teach the ame thing and drift MUST inevitaley occure.

This is where your ultimate error lies.

Can you prove they all teahc diverging doctoriens?

Obviously drift HAS occured, or the founders of the COC wouldn't have left their old churches to found it.

This is psurious logic. As noted above, the CHurhc of CHist has no cengral foudners, and no foundugn date to speak of.

That said, simpley leaving one Churhc and foundign another does not prove drift ha occured within the body. even if YOUR presumption, baed on a weak workign kowledg eo hte hisotry designed to feed your predjudices, where accepted,and a former Meahtodist and Prespetyrian foudned he CHuhc of Christ in, sat, 1830, that doe snto prove that within the Churbc of Hirst itsself Drift in doctiriens occure.

The logic is untenable.

Their existence is proof that there was drift of doctrines, and your statement that their beliefs are "remarkably similar" is another. "Remarkably similar" is not exact.

I say the same of Catholci tchings. No two preists will interrpet Chruch teahcuigns, even with official seal of approval's on them, in exaclty the same way. Im beign academiclaly repsoncible, unliek you. Do you rellay think all proests in the Cahtolci chruhc teah exaclty the same thing? be realistic, just sing the same ibl,e, same Catechims, and same magesrum, you still have a variety of opinions, beleifs, and inteprretaitons. Nonetheless, the teahcigns remain uniform, the same way they do in the hcurc of Christ.

And as noted above, the existanc eof a CHruhc, no matter hwen its ofundation date is, is not proof that the CHurhc itsself suffers form doctorinal drift.

{An error can be called a lie. its a mannerism of my speach. Irony is Kevin mdethe same mistake. Then again I beleive your boh Ameircans... }-Zarove

You should buy a dictionary then. Language is useless if you make up your own definitions for words.

I don't make up my own, Im just British. Which means my mannerisms arent American. Bu they ar eocmmon in the UK.

BTW, if you use words that have your own meanings, and not the generally accepted ones, where do you get off getting all irate when people don't understand what you're saying? See above...

Americans relalythink their usage of word is the only one, and if peopel disagree its personal opinion?

Best not have you read the Jerusalem Bible then, or for hat matter anyhtign by C.S.Lewis. I talk the same way those works do.

Well, with you I guess I have to go a bit more slowly: Are you saying that where you live MANY PEOPLE use the word "lie" to mean "error", or do ONLY YOU do this? Thats for now insultung my intellegence.

And many peopel speak like this.

Well maybe you should have figured out then that I was unclear WHAT you were saying, rather than assume I was lying. { Yes, tis all my ault...blame me... cant be your on lack of research and readines to leap to conlusions...}-Zarove Nope, you are lying, see above. It's your poor communications skills.

Or yours, and yo inability to do research.

Ad Hominim attacks shant work here lad.

Oh by the way, is "Shant" a word I made up with its own use? Or is it, also, commonly used int he UK but not ht he states?

Therefore, you have no point. Therefore you are either in error, or as you would put it "lying".

{Or, you don see how absurd your argumen was, which was my point in levelign an absurd argument.}-Zarove

Why even write this? You said nothing.

I said plenty.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005.


Final recvision.

This is getting tiring. Why have you wasted days talking about how the coc had *anything* to do with former presbyterians and methodists in the United States when you NOW come back and say it may have been around from a.d. 33?

I strive for accuracy. It DID have soemthign to do with them, its not my fault you cannot read carefully.

I will re-explain.

The firts orginised Body called simpley "The Christian Church" was orginised by Stone and Cambell in the American fronteir. This does not make them the founders, and as I have repeatedly stated, the Church of Christs origins are complexe. Its not a simple matter of a foudner and foundign date, and will greatly depend on how you define the structure.

The stne-Cambel movement began in the American frientien int he ealry 19th Century, but the Restoration mvoement itsself existed ling before they where een born, and the groundwork for their movement was accomplished by such men as James O'Kelly, Ricde Haggert, and William Guirey.

The Philoosphy of John Locke, a Scottish Philosopher in the ;ate 1600's ( who dies in 1704) likewise play a vitsl role.

Before Lock, you also have the work of other resotrationary thinkers, such as Kimball, johnson, and Wycliffe with his Lollard society.

Precceeding wycliffe, a variety of indepoendant moements began in the mdidle ages, many of hwich are difficult to track, and none posisble to acuraltey pinpoint a starting date for.

The concept for Restoration was quiet old prior tot he stone-Cambel movement, and though they are credited with popularising and revitilising it, they did not found the movement, nor are the ideas they expressed stirclty their own.

Need I go into a formal Hisory, nameing names and daes, strtchign bakc to at leats the third century and possibely the first? will take a coule weeks but hey, I have time.

What a colossal waste of TIME! Which is it Zarove? You've been chewing my hide for a long time here, why don't you come out and say what date YOU BELIEVE THE COC STARTED, AND WHO STARTED IT!

No one started it. That's the point. Although the Stone-Cambel movement relaly is where most peopel place the general beginning of hte Boy for ocnveneince, their work as based on predessessing persons, datign back centuries.

So you see, there is no "Founder" and no "Founding date" that is applicable.

If you don't know, don't pretend you do. And most of all, if you aren't willing to commit to anything yourself, don't presume to instruct me.

I am commited to the truth and academic excellence. Again, as elaboraed above, I do KNOW the hisotry, and this is why I cant say " Such ad such foudned the Chruhc of christ at so-and-so a date". Its simpley not that simple.

"The beleifs are fxed enough" This is settled for me, so you can drop it too. For you "fixed enough" is GOOD enough. For me the interpretation of the Word must be PERFECT. You have your level of concern, I have mine.

I strive for a perfect interpretaiton as well. Its not my fault you assum that the churhc of Chirst, which is based on Scripture alone, woudl aupomaticllay belive a ariety of Doctorines, because you beleive that Sola Scriptura alone cnanot prodice a solidatity in tweahcing. Again, your prsumption is bias, not fact.

Have you ever even attended a Chruch of chirst? I've been to several, and all had identical teachings. Note, I said "Identical", not "Close enough but with soem differences". The fact that they ar eunifrom and teach EXACLTY THE SAME THING means that, as with your oswn desire, there is a stirving.

{except you beleive their belefs arent uniform not base don actual observation fo the Chruhc of Christ, but base don the presupposition that wthout a statment fo faiht, a reed, or a catechism, they cannot all teach the ame thing and drift MUST inevitaley occure.

This is where your ultimate error lies.

Can you prove they all teahc diverging doctoriens?

Obviously drift HAS occured, or the founders of the COC wouldn't have left their old churches to found it.

This is psurious logic. As noted above, the CHurhc of CHist has no cengral foudners, and no foundugn date to speak of.

That said, simpley leaving one Churhc and foundign another does not prove drift ha occured within the body. even if YOUR presumption, baed on a weak workign kowledg eo hte hisotry designed to feed your predjudices, where accepted,and a former Meahtodist and Prespetyrian foudned he CHuhc of Christ in, sat, 1830, that doe snto prove that within the Churbc of Hirst itsself Drift in doctiriens occure.

The logic is untenable.

Their existence is proof that there was drift of doctrines, and your statement that their beliefs are "remarkably similar" is another. "Remarkably similar" is not exact.

I say the same of Catholci tchings. No two preists will interrpet Chruch teahcuigns, even with official seal of approval's on them, in exaclty the same way. Im beign academiclaly repsoncible, unliek you. Do you rellay think all proests in the Cahtolci chruhc teah exaclty the same thing? be realistic, just sing the same ibl,e, same Catechims, and same magesrum, you still have a variety of opinions, beleifs, and inteprretaitons. Nonetheless, the teahcigns remain uniform, the same way they do in the hcurc of Christ.

And as noted above, the existanc eof a CHruhc, no matter hwen its ofundation date is, is not proof that the CHurhc itsself suffers form doctorinal drift.

{An error can be called a lie. its a mannerism of my speach. Irony is Kevin mdethe same mistake. Then again I beleive your boh Ameircans... }-Zarove

You should buy a dictionary then. Language is useless if you make up your own definitions for words.

I don't make up my own, Im just British. Which means my mannerisms arent American. Bu they ar eocmmon in the UK.

BTW, if you use words that have your own meanings, and not the generally accepted ones, where do you get off getting all irate when people don't understand what you're saying? See above...

Americans relalythink their usage of word is the only one, and if peopel disagree its personal opinion?

Best not have you read the Jerusalem Bible then, or for hat matter anyhtign by C.S.Lewis. I talk the same way those works do.

Well, with you I guess I have to go a bit more slowly: Are you saying that where you live MANY PEOPLE use the word "lie" to mean "error", or do ONLY YOU do this? Thats for now insultung my intellegence.

And many peopel speak like this.

Well maybe you should have figured out then that I was unclear WHAT you were saying, rather than assume I was lying. { Yes, tis all my ault...blame me... cant be your on lack of research and readines to leap to conlusions...}-Zarove Nope, you are lying, see above. It's your poor communications skills.

Or yours, and yo inability to do research.

Ad Hominim attacks shant work here lad.

Oh by the way, is "Shant" a word I made up with its own use? Or is it, also, commonly used int he UK but not ht he states?

Therefore, you have no point. Therefore you are either in error, or as you would put it "lying".

{Or, you don see how absurd your argumen was, which was my point in levelign an absurd argument.}-Zarove

Why even write this? You said nothing.

I said plenty.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005.


This is a continuation of this thread.

The firts orginised Body called simpley "The Christian Church" was orginised by Stone and Cambell in the American fronteir. This does not make them the founders, and as I have repeatedly stated, the Church of Christs origins are complexe. Its not a simple matter of a foudner and foundign date, and will greatly depend on how you define the structure.

I'm not talking about anyone who remotely had "restorationist" ideation, and up until now, neither were you. You said that people calling themselves "Church of Christ" had beliefs that were so distinct and consistent they were in the encyclopdedia. THAT is who we are talking about. By your new "anyone who said anything like this" definition, there aren't many denominations of Christianity that would NOT fall under your definition.

I did try looking up the COC in several online encyclopedias, and unless you mean the UNITED coc (which I don't think you do) the only reference I could find to them is in the Brittainica, and it's not free. What was available implied the churches were mainly in America.

Zarove, to clarify when is the FIRST instance of anyone calling themselves the "church of Christ"?

Before Lock, you also have the work of other resotrationary thinkers, such as Kimball, johnson, and Wycliffe with his Lollard society

Wycliffe I do know something about. Please tell me you aren't trying to say that Wycliffe believed exactly what the coc believes.

Oh what's the point? The reason we can't solve anything here is you keep changing what you are saying. First you say the coc is an unique group with beliefs so well defined they are "in an encyclopedia", and now you say, well, there are people who had some disagreements with the Catholic church (such as Wycliffe) since day 1 and they are ALL in some way a part of the coc". That's just lame. You could use the exact SAME roots for the SDA's or JW's or any other offshoot church founded in the 20th century.

If there are a bunch of people who all call themselves the same thing, they had to start doing so at some point, with some church. Do you know when the first coc was founded, or not?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 06, 2005.


1:I'm not talking about anyone who remotely had "restorationist" ideation, and up until now, neither were you.

Yes I was. I was voicing the hteories about the origin of the Chruc of chrisgt, both held by its members and secular Historians.

You see, te restorationist movment itsself didnt start with Camble and sone, and the Chruhc of Christ is rellay not a Chruch thsat"started" at a spacific time in hisotry, and is a carry over form the existing restorationist movements.

2:You said that people calling themselves "Church of Christ" had beliefs that were so distinct and consistent they were in the encyclopdedia. THAT is who we are talking about.

And their beleifs as to their origin, again, Im not tkign sides and presenting all posisble angles.

3: By your new "anyone who said anything like this" definition, there aren't many denominations of Christianity that would NOT fall under your definition.

This is not true. Not wholly. and again, you also wanted justification for th ebeelif that the chruch fo Christ dated back tot he firts century, and this is hte logical line. You also sught the Cruhc of Hcist origins, and htis is its origins.

It began as a natural outgrowth of the restorationist movement, not to become independant till the 19th century of other Restorationist Chruches till then, but with a clear history prior to the 19th century hat it can likewise claim.

4:I did try looking up the COC in several online encyclopedias, and unless you mean the UNITED coc (which I don't think you do) the only reference I could find to them is in the Brittainica, and it's not free. What was available implied the churches were mainly in America.

I did link weikipedia...

5:Zarove, to clarify when is the FIRST instance of anyone calling themselves the "church of Christ"?

Around 30 AD, and the Biel has Paul mentioning "The Churhces of Christ" in romans 16:16.

Below reprodiced.

Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

It is beelived by the members of the chruc of Christ that this orginisations teachigns date back tot h firts century.

There are conflicting notions, both form secular historians and members o the chruc of Chirst, as to the exact hisotry of the Cruhc of Chrust. This is not , however, relevant to their teachings, as their doctorines are the same across the board.

The Hisotry is, however, not as simpley as you woidl like, with a clear, singular founder and date of foundation.

6:Before Lock, you also have the work of other resotrationary thinkers, such as Kimball, johnson, and Wycliffe with his Lollard society

Wycliffe I do know something about. Please tell me you aren't trying to say that Wycliffe believed exactly what the coc believes.

As stated, my interet in this thread is not to debate who is right, only the line sof logic employed and to render facts accordignly, not to settle your debate, but to make it fair.

This is why Im not "Committing" to any one camp.

I wish you coudl see that...

7:Oh what's the point? The reason we can't solve anything here is you keep changing what you are saying.

I have yet to change nayhtign I was saying. You simpley misread and late rmisrepresent what I have said. such as when you said I claimed the churhc of CHrist was foudned y a meahtodist and prespetyrian, when all I said was the irts congregatio orginised in the american mid-western frontier was orginised by a former meathodist and prespetyrian.

Its not my fautl you think this constetutes a "Founding" of a new chruhc or movement.

8:First you say the coc is an unique group with beliefs so well defined they are "in an encyclopedia", and now you say, well, there are people who had some disagreements with the Catholic church (such as Wycliffe) since day 1 and they are ALL in some way a part of the coc".

That is a gross oversimplification, base don yor own bias toward history. Not eveeryone agrees that the Cahtokci chruch was fonded direclty by Jesus, and stll exists today as it eas when Jesus instetuted it.

The HCurhc iof Hirst is one suhc orginisaiton that rejecs he primacy of the claims of the Cahtoklci Chruch, and not all are wholly ignorant of History.

This is not a cahtolci forum, so, unliek the Cahtolci forum, the catholci version fo Hisotry will not be what I cling to. This does not mean I iwll openly dispute it in my urrent capacity, however, unelss soemthign can be firmly established to the poitn where ti is incontestable, soemthign I may ad which is near imposisble, then it shall not be the restriction of the thread.

The Cahtolic cruch, according o secular hisotrians, has permutated over thr ages and does not look exactly the same as the firts century chruhc, though disagreements on what ha changed and hwen still occure.

The Churhc of christs beelif is that the Cahtolci Churhc went nto apostacy and began adding doctorines and creeds ot the oure fath of Jesus chirst.

This beleif has three theories supporitng the existanc eo e churhc of Christ, presented below.

and again, im not takign sides frank, so I give all three theories for th ebenefit f yuor understanding, htough I doub tou will endeavour to understand it.

1; That the chruhc intotal went into Apostacy, only to be restored later, perhaps several times. However the true Teahcigns where never fully lost, and osme always maintianed in part of in full the teachigns of christ. Later, there was a restoration.

2: The true Chruhc existed within the established Chruhces, where peopel sincerley beleived and worhsipped, but lacked true cuhc structure. In this theort, only Churhc givernance was corrupt as well as teachigns, but the peopel where still considered part of it. this veiw is mainly held by "We are Christains only, but not he only Christaians" types.

3: The True Chruch of christ was in hidding, to escape persecution. In this theory, independant congregations emerged iN europe and elsewhere durign the mddle ages, but records are space or nonexistanct, till the time of the rstoration when the churhc, whihc was dwindling, was rvitilised.

9: That's just lame. You could use the exact SAME roots for the SDA's or JW's or any other offshoot church founded in the 20th century.

Neiher the Jehovas' witnesses of the seventh Day adventists where foudned in the 20th century, bit owe their existance ot the 19th century.

And you cannot use the exact xame logic, since the loigc is inapplicable to the Jehova's witnesses, whom say new light form the watchtower is needed, an hus God perosnlly fudnd htm in the 19th century, much like the Morons, cannot posisbley draw parrallels with what Im saying, and hte seventh day adventists, though in agreement wihthte geenral idea of an apostacy, still trace their theological origins ot the reformaiton, and are not part fo the restoration movement.

10:If there are a bunch of people who all call themselves the same thing, they had to start doing so at some point, with some church. Do you know when the first coc was founded, or not?

semtime arudn 60 AD at he latest, I refer you again to romans 16:16. You wil sya htis was, in fact, a Catholci chruch, with beelifs and practices exalty the same, idnetical in every way, t the Modern Cahtolci chruhc, btu this beelif will be dispited by a Mmbr of the hcurhc of Christ, and you cannot prove solid evidence to disconfirm their claim.

Oh and the reason for the new thread was thst I wa shopign elp wuld merge this one withhte new one and delete the othe rposts...



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005.


Zarove, I think if you look at the writings of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Athanasius, on and on, it is pretty clear that not a one of them believed as the COC do. So how can the COC claim any of these early churchers to be their's?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 06, 2005.


Gail, my goal is ot present what is beleived by the Chruch of crust and to trace their origins boht for theor own perspective and the perspective of Secular Historians.

seular Historians revela the CHruhc fo Christ was not a Chruhc wiht a central founding date, and even though th stone-Cambel movement rellay vitilised it, its origins are att least midaevel.

The Churhc of CHirst beleices that it origionated withthe Apostles and continuously existed, as I elaborated on above in he three theories.

It is no mor emy place to argue whihc is right and wrong on the Chruhc of Christ as it is he Cahtoilci Chruhc, when I defended it and its claims.

All I am tryign to get Frank to do is accept the teachigns and historican perspective of members of the Chruhc of Christ liek Kevin for the sake of Dialouge, rather than forcing his veiw as if everyone agrees and are all wrong.

Factuallt representign the beleifs of others is what Im doiugn here, again, as I told frank, Im not tsking sides.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005.


Hi Zarove,

I didn't mean to put you in the place of defending COC and their beliefs. I just thought since you had come from that background that you would have an idea how they might argue that COC orinated in AD 60.

Perhaps Kevin would be the one to shed some light on that. Just curious.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 06, 2005.


I can explain it, but, Im tryignto be vauge and geenral and give overall points. I initiated this talk with frank to get him to back off wht hsi heavy handedness and try to show Kevin soem rsect and accpet his veiws, if not as his own, as Kevins.

Jjts fisterign udnrstanding.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005.


Zarove,

Wycliffe I do know something about. Please tell me you aren't trying to say that Wycliffe believed exactly what the coc believes.

As stated, my interet in this thread is not to debate who is right, only the line sof logic employed and to render facts accordignly, not to settle your debate, but to make it fair.

This is why Im not "Committing" to any one camp.

The problem is you aren't being consistent. You first say that the COC is so distinct in their beliefs that "encyclopedia articles" could be written about them, yet when I ask you for the origin of this distinct church called the coc you start giving the two-step shuffle and talk about their varied possible origins and refuse to give a straight answer. You either do NOT know when the origin of this church is, or refuse to say. For myself, I'd go with the former Methodist and Presbyterian as its origin. If you would not, can you show me a church group having exactly their beliefs before this calling themselves the "church of Christ"

1; That the chruhc intotal went into Apostacy, only to be restored later, perhaps several times. However the true Teahcigns where never fully lost, and osme always maintianed in part of in full the teachigns of christ. Later, there was a restoration.

Christ said He would be with His church always. To believe there could be a total apostasy is non-Christian, hence wrong.

2: The true Chruhc existed within the established Chruhces, where peopel sincerley beleived and worhsipped, but lacked true cuhc structure. In this theort, only Churhc givernance was corrupt as well as teachigns, but the peopel where still considered part of it. this veiw is mainly held by "We are Christains only, but not he only Christaians" types.

Saying that the physical church could be corrupt is fine, in that many individuals within the visible church have gone bad. This is part of the downside to free will. No organization having it's physical structure composed of human beings is going to be 100% scandal or error free. The churches *teachings* though, can't be corrupt if that were possible Christ wouldn't be with His church, would He? That's the big problem for these Bible only guys, anyone can and does make mistakes, one needs the everlasting church to give us the correct interpretation of Scripture, as well as to tell us which books of the Bible actually ARE Scripture.

3: The True Chruch of christ was in hidding, to escape persecution. In this theory, independant congregations emerged iN europe and elsewhere durign the mddle ages, but records are space or nonexistanct, till the time of the rstoration when the churhc, whihc was dwindling, was rvitilised.

This is possible, but malarky. You can make up anything you want, for example "Christ had an unwritten law that He demanded not be recorded but yet followed absolutely, and that law is that everyone wear Red Underwear". This secret law has been followed throughout the ages by the True Church, and hasn't been made public for fear of persecution. Can you DISprove it? No, because you can't prove or disprove a negative. Obviously since it's a "secret", it can't be proven in history either. However,I'm sure if you examine paintings from the middle ages close enough, you'll see some of the portraits have a trace of Red on their garments, which is a secret symbol of their membership in the True Chruch. See, these paintings are PROOF that this church has ALWAYS existed! Are you a believer yet?

The big point that these conspiracy theory church types (an oxymoron if ever there was one) miss is that Christ's goal is to save ALL MANKIND! Why on earth would He allow the church to just be some secret society known only to a few? Was His Judgement so poor in starting His church that only a few were privy to it within a few years of His death and resurrection? Did He do THAT bad a job? What would the point be? No, it makes much more sense to believe that Christ is the Good Shepherd, and His church has been both visible and accessible to those who seek it since day one. Strangely, this coincides with the Catholic church's presense here.

9: That's just lame. You could use the exact SAME roots for the SDA's or JW's or any other offshoot church founded in the 20th century.

Neiher the Jehovas' witnesses of the seventh Day adventists where foudned in the 20th century, bit owe their existance ot the 19th century.

LOL, that was my Zarove-ism, placed for your benefit. If you read my post more closely you'll see I said JW, SDA, OR any other church founded in the 20th century. I wasn't implying that the SDA's or JW's were founded then, they started in general around the same time as the LDS's. (I didn't use them as it might offend any Mormons who are hanging around, and would not agree with this. Hopefully, you've learned somehting here, and that is it is up to YOU as a writer to make what you say clear, and not up to your readers to have to figure out what you are trying to say.

10:If there are a bunch of people who all call themselves the same thing, they had to start doing so at some point, with some church. Do you know when the first coc was founded, or not?

semtime arudn 60 AD at he latest, I refer you again to romans 16:16. You wil sya htis was, in fact, a Catholci chruch, with beelifs and practices exalty the same, idnetical in every way, t the Modern Cahtolci chruhc, btu this beelif will be dispited by a Mmbr of the hcurhc of Christ, and you cannot prove solid evidence to disconfirm their claim.

What I CAN do though is to show consistent Catholic beliefs since that time. A COC or "Red Underwear" church can NOT do the same.

Frank

Finally, I'll note you aren't taking me up on my $20.oo bet. You should think about that too.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 08, 2005.


Wycliffe I do know something about. Please tell me you aren't trying to say that Wycliffe believed exactly what the coc believes.

All im saying is the groundwork for the Restration movement is rather old.

It did not develop overnight. As stated, my interet in this thread is not to debate who is right, only the line sof logic employed and to render facts accordignly, not to settle your debate, but to make it fair.

This is why Im not "Committing" to any one camp.

The problem is you aren't being consistent. You first say that the COC is so distinct in their beliefs that "encyclopedia articles" could be written about them, yet when I ask you for the origin of this distinct church called the coc you start giving the two-step shuffle and talk about their varied possible origins and refuse to give a straight answer.

This is because their is no straight answer.That's the point. it wll depend on your beelifs. its the same with Catholisism. YOU claim it started direclty with Jesus Christ, and was handed down tot he apsotles exactly as it is to-day. However, not many outside of Catholisism share this Veiw.

Faith has maintianed that Constantine was the oudner of Catholisism, for instance, and whereas her vewi can be clearly de,onstratd as false, other veriuws form Sedcular Historians cannot.

Overall, the geenrally accepted History is that what you know of as the Catholci Chruch origionated in stages, beginning wihhe earliest Beleivers, but permutatign over time, with additions and subractiosn and re-defining doctorines over time, till eventually the current Heirarichal mechanisms and doctorinal teahcigns where in place.

so, rather than see the Catholci Chruch as possessing a single foiuner wiht a single foundign Datd, as Catholcis do, most secular Historians see various sttages of development leadign to the develpopment of the current Catholic system.

The same holds for the Chruhc of Christ, which went throuh stages of develpopment, and has no singlular founder.

You either do NOT know when the origin of this church is, or refuse to say.

Or else, as I said all along, there is no simple, single answer. You want the name of the foudner and a ofudning date, this is imposisble wihhte Chuehc of christ since it has no singular ofindign date and no singular founder, it developed as aprt of a movement that began centuries before it orginised compeltley in the American frintienr in the 19th Cenutry, and has no direct origion.

Only indrect stges of development.

Once you stip trying to se it as an abslute item and veiw the Hisotry as Organic, you will seehow this works.

For myself, I'd go with the former Methodist and Presbyterian as its origin.

So your willign to be intellectually dishonest. Fine, be dishienst if you have to, and Ill let faiht start sayign the Cahtolci Cruch was Pagab and began with onstantine and see how well that goes over...

Again, Frank.

And listen,

There is no single foundation date, and no single set of founers, it was part of the restoration movement that owes its existance ot several contributors throuhout the centuries and has no direct foundation withte works of any oen man or gorup.

saying it was founed by a Meatodist and prespetyian is dishonest, both because these men wherent meahtodists and presputyrian atthe time, and becane thry int just get togather oen day and foudn a chruch, they had built upon a pre-existing notion and accepted a pre- existing movement as their own, they merley orginised a Conregation in the American midwest, they did not found the movement.

If you would not, can you show me a church group having exactly their beliefs before this calling themselves the "church of Christ"

I cant een show you a "Catholic Chuhc" int he irts century thats exaclty liek the Modern Novos Ordo Chruch, does that mean the Trads ar righ and the Novos Ordo is a new apsotate rleigion?

Or ebtter yet, the ealry Chruhces, while similar to Traditional Cahtolic, arent even identical to them, so I gues Cahtolisism needs a foudner and foundign date too, or else we have to work with Constantine liek faiht does, roght?

Again, the logic you ewmploy is too ridgid and flawed.

1; That the chruhc intotal went into Apostacy, only to be restored later, perhaps several times. However the true Teahcigns where never fully lost, and osme always maintianed in part of in full the teachigns of christ. Later, there was a restoration. Christ said He would be with His church always. To believe there could be a total apostasy is non-Christian, hence wrong.

At leats, in your opinion. Those who hold this theory claim that, since the CHuh as restoed when pepel where willign to listen and do as the Bible commanded, he never left. The CHurhc left him, and needed ot be restored. Similar to how he Allowed his Cosen Peopel, israel, go nt Babylonian Cpativity.

Syaing that the Israelite naiton was destoryed and later re- estavlished is not anti-Jewish because they are the Chosen people. Neither is the idea of total Apostacy "Nin-Christain and therefoe wrong".

There is Biblical precedent.

2: The true Chruhc existed within the established Chruhces, where peopel sincerley beleived and worhsipped, but lacked true cuhc structure. In this theort, only Churhc givernance was corrupt as well as teachigns, but the peopel where still considered part of it. this veiw is mainly held by "We are Christains only, but not he only Christaians" types. Saying that the physical church could be corrupt is fine, in that many individuals within the visible church have gone bad. This is part of the downside to free will. No organization having it's physical structure composed of human beings is going to be 100% scandal or error free. The churches *teachings* though, can't be corrupt if that were possible Christ wouldn't be with His church, would He? That's the big problem for these Bible only guys, anyone can and does make mistakes, one needs the everlasting church to give us the correct interpretation of Scripture, as well as to tell us which books of the Bible actually ARE Scripture.

This is agaun only true if we accept your biases, and since membes of he hcurhc of Chist do not accept your Biases, then why on earth shoudk it be relevant? You have no real proof that Christ left his churhc if the teachigns became corrupt. All one woidl have to do to reute this is say that Christ never left but the teachings became a pale shadow of what they where.

As or he "everlastign chruch" claim, the reality is that, as noted already, the churhc of christ teachigns ar euniform and consistant throhghout all Cruches of christ. dispite you saying its impososhle for their to be unity wihtout a creed or statement of faith, therie is unity.

However, because of free will, a Chruhc of christ member will say that the Teahigns of any chruc of chirst can be subject to Corruption, whihc is how they argue that he Catolic chruch came into existance.

It is said the earliest chruhces of chirst came under subjection to a cenal heiraerchy that itsself became corupt and imposed false teahcigns that accumulated over time.

Christ kept his word, but we turne dout back on chrust, or so the story goes.

3: The True Chruch of christ was in hidding, to escape persecution. In this theory, independant congregations emerged iN europe and elsewhere durign the mddle ages, but records are space or nonexistanct, till the time of the rstoration when the churhc, whihc was dwindling, was rvitilised. This is possible, but malarky.

Only becaus you acept as A Priori that he Cahtolci chruch is true and all others false. Again, frank, this is not the Cahtolci board, and cannot be asusmed to be what everyone accepts.

You can make up anything you want, for example "Christ had an unwritten law that He demanded not be recorded but yet followed absolutely, and that law is that everyone wear Red Underwear".

Intersting. This is exactly what The Chruch of Christ claism your Sacrdd Tradition is, man-made teachigns that where not written down that where merley clsimed by the Cruhc of Arome in order to supplant real beleif in the Biblical teachigns wiht its own doctorines.

Odd hwo that works, huh?

Why coulndt it have been the Catholic Churh that pretended that thigns whe unwritten and had to be obeyed and added ot things? why asume the Curh of chirst made the thifns up and the Cahtolcis ar tellign the truth?

The answer is because your Cahtolic and you exepct everyone to agree.

This secret law has been followed throughout the ages by the True Church, and hasn't been made public for fear of persecution. Can you DISprove it?

Can you prove that sacred tradition is anyhtign but man-made crap aded tothe churhc over ime? No, the best you can do is asure me hat the Hurh cannot err, which asumes tust the Cahtolic churhc.

Thats where yout not making the logicsal connection ehre.

Catholic claims are equrlly unprovable.

No, because you can't prove or disprove a negative.

And you cant prove or disprive hat Sacred Tradition is valid. So we are again back to square one.

Obviously since it's a "secret", it can't be proven in history either.

except the Church of chirst can and does fllow a Histoical progression.

However,I'm sure if you examine paintings from the middle ages close enough, you'll see some of the portraits have a trace of Red on their garments, which is a secret symbol of their membership in the True Chruch. See, these paintings are PROOF that this church has ALWAYS existed! Are you a believer yet?

Again, the Chruhc of chrust makes the same "red underware" argument about Catholic claims of sacred tradition and many of their other doctoriens not foudn in Sacred sciroture.

All you have done is demonstrated your lakc of ability to accept oter peopels pint of veiw, and you have not yet even remoley shown an interest in Honest dialouge, only discfediting the chruh of HCirst and saying "Cahtolcis are the true chruhc!"

again,, one can make exaclty the same aergumen agaisnt most of Cahtolci Teachings.

The big point that these conspiracy theory church types (an oxymoron if ever there was one) miss is that Christ's goal is to save ALL MANKIND!

No they dont. They simpey say persecution drove the true Teachigns into hidinvg. They do not say their was much of a conspiracy, only ostility of the word, driven mainly bt Satan and satanic forces, and of coruse our own sinfulness.

However, the Curhc of hcist does not preclude Salvation to those in other Chruches as a rule, especialy if hey had no coice in the matter.

Why on earth would He allow the church to just be some secret society known only to a few?

You mean, likke it was when it was an undegrund movement and frome was tryign to stamp it out of existance?

Was His Judgement so poor in starting His church that only a few were privy to it within a few years of His death and resurrection?

Have you NOT read Hisotfy? The beelivers met in secret and whee often Martyred......... It WAS a secret society, not because salvation si offeed to only a few, but because the world sought their lives.

Did He do THAT bad a job?

It wasnt a bad job, so much as we refsed to listen.

What would the point be?

Havent read much Old testament have you? Israel did exacly the same thing, dos this prove that they werent the cosen people? if so, why not toss the Old testament?

No, it makes much more sense to believe that Christ is the Good Shepherd, and His church has been both visible and accessible to those who seek it since day one.

In compelte defiance of Hisotrical fact. until the edict of Milan, Christainity was OUTLAWED, and WAS an undergrund movement that hid form auhtorities to maintian its survival...

Strangely, this coincides with the Catholic church's presense here.

No it doesnt, it doesnt even coincide with everyones Hisotrical veiw, includign the Cahtolci Chruches.

9: That's just lame. You could use the exact SAME roots for the SDA's or JW's or any other offshoot church founded in the 20th century. Neiher the Jehovas' witnesses of the seventh Day adventists where foudned in the 20th century, bit owe their existance ot the 19th century. LOL, that was my Zarove-ism, placed for your benefit. If you read my post more closely you'll see I said JW, SDA, OR any other church founded in the 20th century. I wasn't implying that the SDA's or JW's were founded then, they started in general around the same time as the LDS's. (I didn't use them as it might offend any Mormons who are hanging around, and would not agree with this. Hopefully, you've learned somehting here, and that is it is up to YOU as a writer to make what you say clear, and not up to your readers to have to figure out what you are trying to say.

In short, your beign a pain now , Gotcha.

10:If there are a bunch of people who all call themselves the same thing, they had to start doing so at some point, with some church. Do you know when the first coc was founded, or not? semtime arudn 60 AD at he latest, I refer you again to romans 16:16. You wil sya htis was, in fact, a Catholci chruch, with beelifs and practices exalty the same, idnetical in every way, t the Modern Cahtolci chruhc, btu this beelif will be dispited by a Mmbr of the hcurhc of Christ, and you cannot prove solid evidence to disconfirm their claim. What I CAN do though is to show consistent Catholic beliefs since that time. A COC or "Red Underwear" church can NOT do the same.

No you cant. You cannot prove the Apsotles taught sacred tradition, Purgetory, Or the purpertual virginity of Mary. You cannot prove the teachigns of Papal supremacy. You cannot prive the Apostles themselves taugt Transubstantiation.

Again, its basiclaly your red underwear agument agaisn thriers, and yet you want to pretend to have leverage.

Frank Finally, I'll note you aren't taking me up on my $20.oo bet. You should think about that too.

what bet?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 08, 2005.



Only indrect stges of development.

Once you stip trying to se it as an abslute item and veiw the Hisotry as Organic, you will seehow this works.

Well, I'll try one more time. There ARE churches today that all call themselves the "COC", right? They have existed for at least ~ 150 years. When is the first recorded instance of a church calling themselves the COC with these beliefs? Now I'm NOT talking about some organic progression, evolution of church mumbo jumbo, what I'm interested in is when the current end product appeared. We don't want homo erectus or australopithicus, but homo sapiens here. My guess, America, last century. So far you have yet to show me something concrete earlier. (Again in contrast to the Catholic church).

For myself, I'd go with the former Methodist and Presbyterian as its origin.

So your willign to be intellectually dishonest. Fine, be dishienst if you have to, and Ill let faiht start sayign the Cahtolci Cruch was Pagab and began with onstantine and see how well that goes over

Nope, actually being intellectually dishonest is trying to make a claim where none exists. I don't know who Pagab was, (but you are welcome to enlighten me) and the whole Constantine thing is laughed at outside of Jack Chick tract-mentality "Christians".

saying it was founed by a Meatodist and prespetyian is dishonest, both because these men wherent meahtodists and presputyrian atthe time, and becane thry int just get togather oen day and foudn a chruch, they had built upon a pre-existing notion and accepted a pre- existing movement as their own, they merley orginised a Conregation in the American midwest, they did not found the movement.

You really have trouble committing to anything. Take a non-church example. There have always been lava-lamp loving free thinkers, but if you say "when was the American Hippie movement", people will say "the 60's" and be correct. You on the other hand will say "but wait, there were freethinkers 200 years ago! The hippie movement started then or earlier! By doing so you are missing the point. NONE of these churches starts in a vacuum, nor does any idea. EVERYTHING is built on what came before it, but I am not asking you about its roots, I'm asking about it's current fruit. You just can't force yourself to give a straight answer.

Intersting. This is exactly what The Chruch of Christ claism your Sacrdd Tradition is, man-made teachigns that where not written down that where merley clsimed by the Cruhc of Arome in order to supplant real beleif in the Biblical teachigns wiht its own doctorines.

Humorous more like. Where did these mysterious other teachings of the "True" church go? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the Catholic church has been quite prolific in writing down its beliefs over the millenia.

Why coulndt it have been the Catholic Churh that pretended that thigns whe unwritten and had to be obeyed and added ot things? why asume the Curh of chirst made the thifns up and the Cahtolcis ar tellign the truth?

The answer is because your Cahtolic and you exepct everyone to agree.

Nope. The answer is because my church has written the same things since day one. The COC does NOT have records dating continually back to the beginning like we do. Pretty big difference. And why are you trying to insult me based on what religion I am? I'm not lambasting you on your choice of belief.

This secret law has been followed throughout the ages by the True Church, and hasn't been made public for fear of persecution. Can you DISprove it?

Can you prove that sacred tradition is anyhtign but man-made crap aded tothe churhc over ime?

I can read the Bible where we are told to keep Tradition, both written and oral. Unless you have some other church that has a direct history back to when that oral Tradition was being given, you'd be loony to throw away what you do have, found in the Catholic church.

However,I'm sure if you examine paintings from the middle ages close enough, you'll see some of the portraits have a trace of Red on their garments, which is a secret symbol of their membership in the True Chruch. See, these paintings are PROOF that this church has ALWAYS existed! Are you a believer yet?

Again, the Chruhc of chrust makes the same "red underware" argument about Catholic claims of sacred tradition and many of their other doctoriens not foudn in Sacred sciroture.

Not nearly the same claim, LOL! I can show you churches built a LOOOONG time ago, and writings back at least to a.d.40. Pretty good evidence for my church's claim to actually being PRESENT. The "red underwear" claim is for people who do NOT have proof that they were even around.

However, the Curhc of hcist does not preclude Salvation to those in other Chruches as a rule, especialy if hey had no coice in the matter.

Why on earth would He allow the church to just be some secret society known only to a few?

This would actually be a good point, if you were talking about a.d 40 and not a.d.1040 or a.d. 2000.

What would the point be?

Havent read much Old testament have you? Israel did exacly the same thing, dos this prove that they werent the cosen people? if so, why not toss the Old testament?

Do you think Christ's death and resurrection did anything?

In short, your beign a pain now , Gotcha

So you sow, so shall you reap.

Frank Finally, I'll note you aren't taking me up on my $20.oo bet. You should think about that too.

what bet?

You are the one who thinks everyone should remember the details of your life, I'm sure you'll remember .

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 08, 2005.


Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam) responded to a message you left in the Ask Jesus bboard: Subject: Response to to frank Only indrect stges of development. Once you stip trying to se it as an abslute item and veiw the Hisotry as Organic, you will seehow this works. Well, I'll try one more time. There ARE churches today that all call themselves the "COC", right? They have existed for at least ~ 150 years. When is the first recorded instance of a church calling themselves the COC with these beliefs?

{Aagain, this depends on who yo ask,a nd I am nto here to settle the mater btu to present clear information. Notto take sides.}-Zarove

Now I'm NOT talking about some organic progression, evolution of church mumbo jumbo, what I'm interested in is when the current end product appeared. We don't want homo erectus or australopithicus, but homo sapiens here. My guess, America, last century. So far you have yet to show me something concrete earlier. (Again in contrast to the Catholic church).

{Assumign the claism fo the Cahtolic churhc are teue and it was foudnd direlty by Jesus, which most secular historians dispute...}- Zarove For myself, I'd go with the former Methodist and Presbyterian as its origin. So your willign to be intellectually dishonest. Fine, be dishienst if you have to, and Ill let faiht start sayign the Cahtolci Cruch was Pagab and began with onstantine and see how well that goes over Nope, actually being intellectually dishonest is trying to make a claim where none exists. I don't know who Pagab was, (but you are welcome to enlighten me) and the whole Constantine thing is laughed at outside of Jack Chick tract-mentality "Christians".

{Pagan. And Faith rpeated the claims. My pijnt is tha you are beifn as narow minded, jugemental, and uninformed as Jack chick.}-Zarove

saying it was founed by a Meatodist and prespetyian is dishonest, both because these men wherent meahtodists and presputyrian atthe time, and becane thry int just get togather oen day and foudn a chruch, they had built upon a pre-existing notion and accepted a pre- existing movement as their own, they merley orginised a Conregation in the American midwest, they did not found the movement. You really have trouble committing to anything.

{No, I odnt. However, Im tryign to rpese a fair and balanced veiw, not to take sides.Thats the point.}-Zarove

Take a non-church example. There have always been lava-lamp loving free thinkers, but if you say "when was the American Hippie movement", people will say "the 60's" and be correct. You on the other hand will say "but wait, there were freethinkers 200 years ago! The hippie movement started then or earlier! By doing so you are missing the point. NONE of these churches starts in a vacuum, nor does any idea. EVERYTHING is built on what came before it, but I am not asking you about its roots, I'm asking about it's current fruit. You just can't force yourself to give a straight answer.

{OK hen, the current Cathokci chruc was foudne dby Paul the 6th in 1962, and is claled the Novos Ordo chruch. ( Listen tot he trads.)

Again, to make a deifnitive wodl be to remove my objectivity.

The churhc of chrst claism it extends tthe firts century and can bakc heir claims withhte theries I presetned. That shoudk suffice for now.}-Zarove Intersting. This is exactly what The Chruch of Christ claism your Sacrdd Tradition is, man-made teachigns that where not written down that where merley clsimed by the Cruhc of Arome in order to supplant real beleif in the Biblical teachigns wiht its own doctorines. Humorous more like. Where did these mysterious other teachings of the "True" church go?

{No whee, theyw here always maintained by some, and where alays avialbale in the Scriptrues.}-Zarove

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the Catholic church has been quite prolific in writing down its beliefs over the millenia.

{and perhaps you havent notivced, but not everyone was Catholic ealry on...dispite what you hear on Catholci firum.}-Zarove Why coulndt it have been the Catholic Churh that pretended that thigns whe unwritten and had to be obeyed and added ot things? why asume the Curh of chirst made the thifns up and the Cahtolcis ar tellign the truth? The answer is because your Cahtolic and you exepct everyone to agree. Nope. The answer is because my church has written the same things since day one.

{Has it? That is its claim, but again, the evidence is not as conclusive as you woidl like to beelive.}-Zarove

The COC does NOT have records dating continually back to the beginning like we do.

{yes, tey do.they have the new testament, for starters.They also have a few dessenters. what you mean is they don have second centiury writers, but by that time he apostacy may have alray occured, makin itmoot.}-Zarove

Pretty big difference. And why are you trying to insult me based on what religion I am? I'm not lambasting you on your choice of belief.

{Uhm, yes you are. moreover you are lambestign Kevin.

Also, Im only presentign the logical flaws to yor argument, not tryign to discrdit your cruch. thats the difference here.}-Zarove

This secret law has been followed throughout the ages by the True Church, and hasn't been made public for fear of persecution. Can you DISprove it? Can you prove that sacred tradition is anyhtign but man-made crap aded tothe churhc over ime? I can read the Bible where we are told to keep Tradition, both written and oral.

{But thats only a Catholci argument, and has been dealt with on this baord before. we arent going down that road again if I cn help it, but the arugment agaisnt the Catholci posiion already exists.}-Zarove

Unless you have some other church that has a direct history back to when that oral Tradition was being given, you'd be loony to throw away what you do have, found in the Catholic church.

{Assuming the Catholci traditions date bakc that far, which is contested.}-Zarove

However,I'm sure if you examine paintings from the middle ages close enough, you'll see some of the portraits have a trace of Red on their garments, which is a secret symbol of their membership in the True Chruch. See, these paintings are PROOF that this church has ALWAYS existed! Are you a believer yet? Again, the Chruhc of chrust makes the same "red underware" argument about Catholic claims of sacred tradition and many of their other doctoriens not foudn in Sacred sciroture. Not nearly the same claim, LOL! I can show you churches built a LOOOONG time ago, and writings back at least to a.d.40. Pretty good evidence for my church's claim to actually being PRESENT. The "red underwear" claim is for people who do NOT have proof that they were even around.

{False. The earlist writitngs where those of St.Paul around 40 AD, no other wirttings ecxist extant, and those wirttings ar elaimed byt eh curch of CHirst. The earlist spacificlay Cahtolci Dctuments dagr orm late firts century at best, and most shcoalrds conlcuse second century.}-Zarove However, the Curhc of hcist does not preclude Salvation to those in other Chruches as a rule, especialy if hey had no coice in the matter. Why on earth would He allow the church to just be some secret society known only to a few? This would actually be a good point, if you were talking about a.d 40 and not a.d.1040 or a.d. 2000.

{And in tose itmes we have "restorationist" Churhces...there is also the fact that Pwrseution for hose hwo left the churhc ( Inqesition) existed. Likewise, noncatolcis existed and wre killed. ( Waldenses coem to mind.)

Then take ino acount mens dsir to follow only God and not man-made creeds, which i cental tot he resration movement.Those you ignore.}- Zarove What would the point be? Havent read much Old testament have you? Israel did exacly the same thing, dos this prove that they werent the cosen people? if so, why not toss the Old testament? Do you think Christ's death and resurrection did anything?

{The pint is men can still turn ther backs...}-Zarove In short, your beign a pain now , Gotcha So you sow, so shall you reap.

{Im not reaping what I sow here, sicne Im only tyign to prsnt impartian data and not tsake sides,our the one beign snide and condecending.}-Zarove Frank Finally, I'll note you aren't taking me up on my $20.oo bet. You should think about that too. what bet? You are the one who thinks everyone should remember the details of your life, I'm sure you'll remember . {Gues sh ebet want improtant. ( and I don expect peoepl to rmember alldetials, but thgns I repeated oftn enoug shoud stikc out.)}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 08, 2005.


Zarove,

I see that you've finally gotten my point, with the 60's example. We can move on a bit, it's obvious there was no church actively CALLED the COC before the middle of the last century by your posts.

"And why are you trying to insult me based on what religion I am? I'm not lambasting you on your choice of belief.

{Uhm, yes you are. moreover you are lambestign Kevin. "

First of all, you said you USED TO be in the COC, and now you are in the "four square" church, so I would be lambasting your OLD church, not your chruch, if I was lambasting anything. Secondly, I am not saying anything about Kevin, so you are lying.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 10, 2005.


Im not actually "In" the 4 Square Chruch, I never joined, I just attend.

That said, in the last thread, Kevin was beign attacked, your rude, condecending, and arogant tone and or britilising his beleifs wile misrepresentign them prompted me to take axction. Not anythugn else.

Yes he said billiosn of Catholcis are goign to Hell, and soem Catholcis hae said all NonCatholics are doomed. So what? That much is allowed, but direct personal attack and misinformation is not allowed.

You misrepresented the beelifs of the Chruch of christ. You misrepresented the Hisotry fot he Cruch of Christ. You misrepresented what the CHruch of Chist is.

Then you insisted Kevin accept your veiw of Hisotry with Cahtolic Primacy, as if this was th eonly veiw availabe, wich it is not.

You must plearn that not everyone sees things the way youj do.

And not everyone thinks the Cahtolci Chruch as it stands today is exaclty the same as the CHruch in the ifts century and is thus th eldesrt churhc foudned dircly by Jesus. And those who do not hold this beelif arent wholly ignorant of Hisotry.

All this said, the Chruch of Christs hisotry is less than clear if you try to tracjk it, as I said. Plenty of gorups with similar if not identical beelifs did exist prior to the 19th century. The 19th Century was merley the origin of the Stone-Camble movement. And even if it did origionat ein he 19th Century, sicne the pela of the Cruc of christ is restoration, which implies that there is a need to sart over, the date of foundation becomes irrelevant, since its not the age of the Chruhc that causes its legitimacy. Afaigain, the CHurhc of CHirst snt protestnat, its Restorationist. Tebrefore its pfremise is that the CHruhc as restored to its proper form. Thus, if this restoration happened int he 19th Century, what difference wouidl it make? All that woudl prove is that Restoration happened int he 19th Centgury, it wodl not, however, invaidate the Chruch of CHrist.,

And sits well withthe restoration theiryy that states the true chruch was lost.

Which is one of the theories I presented, Ironically.

Now, those who say the cruhc existed in an unbroken chain can trace its origins bakc tot he firts cntury.

Those who say it was lost form the earth and restored can trace it back tot he 19th Century when it was restored.

either have vlaid points.

Both veiws are to be respected, if not acepted, by posters on this baord.

Is that reasonable enoigh, or do I have to drive the poitn home even further?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.


"Satan will be damned to Hell". I'm not sure that we have 100% agreement on that comment. It would also be a less than accurate assertion that "a billion" Catholics are going to meet Satan. Of course, if God told me personally, I would certainly rethink everything. Now, if Satan told me personally, that's a whole different deal.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.



I have a question:

For those of you who are prepared to see those billion Catholics fry in Hell, how many church of Christ followers are also destined to Hell? Are there any?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.


I'm wondering if the logs have been removed from their eyes. That would probably give them justification for condemning Catholics. That's just a guess; I could be right.

............................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.


Billiosn of every Churhc go to Hell. Salvatiosn rests on acceptance of christ and obedience to his commandments, those that do not, they are ocndmened no mater what CHurhc membership they carry.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.

Exactly! Zarove. Now.....how to convince the other billion!

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.


I sat run Television ads,works for bothhte Mormons and United Chruch of Christ!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.

Zarove,

That said, in the last thread, Kevin was beign attacked, your rude, condecending, and arogant tone and or britilising his beleifs wile misrepresentign them prompted me to take axction. Not anythugn else.

Yes he said billiosn of Catholcis are goign to Hell, and soem Catholcis hae said all NonCatholics are doomed. So what? That much is allowed, but direct personal attack and misinformation is not allowed.

You misrepresented the beelifs of the Chruch of christ. You misrepresented the Hisotry fot he Cruch of Christ. You misrepresented what the CHruch of Chist is.

Then you insisted Kevin accept your veiw of Hisotry with Cahtolic Primacy, as if this was th eonly veiw availabe, wich it is not.

You must plearn that not everyone sees things the way youj do.

So basically, anyone who says anything evil about another church (such as a billion of them are going to Hell), that's O.K., so long as you agree with them, but if you DISAGREE with someone, then you take it upon yourself to hound them forever. You aren't being very objective, but as to the rules of the forum, I Gotcha.

You must plearn that not everyone sees things the way youj do.

And not everyone thinks the Cahtolci Chruch as it stands today is exaclty the same as the CHruch in the ifts century and is thus th eldesrt churhc foudned dircly by Jesus. And those who do not hold this beelif arent wholly ignorant of Hisotry

If you wanted to be objective, you would be criticizing everyone else here for NOT taking the Catholic view of the world when they post! The truth is you criticize people who don't accept what YOU accept as correct, and do NOT tell people who believe what you do that they must consider the Catholic claim as at least as valid if not more so than their own, right? Now THAT would be objective, you only call yourself objective but actually act in a very biased manner.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 10, 2005.


Rod,

Yes, it is sad to say that there are many in the church of Christ who are lost and unless they repent before their death or Jesus returns (whichever occurs first) they will die in their sins...

There is no such thing as OSAS...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 10, 2005.


Zarove, That said, in the last thread, Kevin was beign attacked, your rude, condecending, and arogant tone and or britilising his beleifs wile misrepresentign them prompted me to take axction. Not anythugn else. Yes he said billiosn of Catholcis are goign to Hell, and soem Catholcis hae said all NonCatholics are doomed. So what? That much is allowed, but direct personal attack and misinformation is not allowed. You misrepresented the beelifs of the Chruch of christ. You misrepresented the Hisotry fot he Cruch of Christ. You misrepresented what the CHruch of Chist is. Then you insisted Kevin accept your veiw of Hisotry with Cahtolic Primacy, as if this was th eonly veiw availabe, wich it is not. You must plearn that not everyone sees things the way youj do. So basically, anyone who says anything evil about another church (such as a billion of them are going to Hell), that's O.K., so long as you agree with them, but if you DISAGREE with someone, then you take it upon yourself to hound them forever.

{No. However, if you re-read the thread, Kevins statement was largley reactionary to your alfreayd preasent condecent. You where beign aggressive form word go and even admited it. Kevin's attitude followed yors, and so he is not as liable for his comments as you ae for instigatign the harsh languag eon the thread ot begin with. Can't stand the heat, get out of the evon, as the sayign goes.

However, you seek to obviate any blame and now blame me. This is typocal, but not fair.}-Zarove

You aren't being very objective, but as to the rules of the forum, I Gotcha.

{Im beign as objective as possible, thats why I dont just "pck a theory and go woit it" and why it seems Im not commitign to any one arugment. its because its not for me to defend the Chruch of chirst, btu to make sure you undertsand the hteories used and try to work with them, rathe rthan makign toyr blanket, and false, satenents.}- Zarove You must plearn that not everyone sees things the way youj do. And not everyone thinks the Cahtolci Chruch as it stands today is exaclty the same as the CHruch in the ifts century and is thus th eldesrt churhc foudned dircly by Jesus. And those who do not hold this beelif arent wholly ignorant of Hisotry If you wanted to be objective, you would be criticizing everyone else here for NOT taking the Catholic view of the world when they post!

{That makes absolutely no sence whatsoever, except that you think that any objectiv eobserver agrees withhte catolic chruches veiw of hisory, wich is false.}-Zarove

The truth is you criticize people who don't accept what YOU accept as correct, and do NOT tell people who believe what you do that they must consider the Catholic claim as at least as valid if not more so than their own, right?

{I have defended the Cahtolci Churhc agaisnt false claims, hwoever, the Cahtolci eiw is not "equel to in vlaididty , if not more vlaid, than other veiws." This is a satement of predjudice. You may htink Hisotry is self evidnet, that there wa sonl oen HCurh till Luther and then others broke, and Jesus christ statted the Cahtilic cruch as it stnds today, and this si supported by Hisotry, and thats great. I wont oppose that veiw.

I never have, ask oen of the egular Catholic Contributors.

I even DEFENDED the Catholic chuhc wheneversomeone misrepresents it.

However, no matter that I defended the Cahtolci veiw in the past, tyou can come in now and say Im predjudiced agaisnt cahtolics because I wont let you make laims aaint the churhc of chust and run it to th gorund. yes, the hcurhc of chust MUST accept the factthat the Cahtlic Chruch was oudnd direclty by chit and thats he only ay to be objective.

relaly.

And saying Im not beign objective is Just flat out moronic.

again, Frank, Im tryign o present what he churhc of chirst beelives, and preventign you from distortign the information. I am not, hwoever, tring to defend the hcurhc of christ itsself, merley the basis for dialouge.

The same aciosn I ahve taken in defence of the Cahtolci Chruhc in the past.

I am beign objective, and dotn force world views on anyone. This is why we are debating, because you waed to force Kevin in your world view, and not dialouge.

Do I need ot post links where I have defended Catolsiism before you lay off the 'Your beign biSED AGAISNT Catholics" routine?}-Zarove

Now THAT would be objective, you only call yourself objective but actually act in a very biased manner.

{wat Bias? the fac tthat I wont just say "The cahtilci Chruch is th eoldest and started by jeus Christ, everyone must accept it" dosnt make me biased.

Nor does your claim of my bias sit well wiht how yo wl be percoeved on this board.

But if yo insist, Ill contact a coupl of he regular cahtolci contibutors and ask tem to post on this thread abotu my conduct.

This is an official act of sanction, if hwoever they do nto see my behaviour as Biased, hen you wil be duely warned againt such putrage int e future.

If you persist, then we will know where you truely stand in the mean of dialouge.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.


I have emailed two Cahtolcis, rd and Gail, hy will re-read he htread and tell if I am beign biased aaint Catolcis.

They are catolic.They have likewise seen me defend Catholsiism in the past.

Im not trying to gang up here, just beign fair.

Your claim hat I am biased gaaint Cahtilisism is not to stand, and I am not goin to let this be a "He said he said" deal.

Until they repsind, I wll bastan form comment.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.


Zarove

I presume that you emailed to my Yahoo address. I can access that account on my work computer. This browser is too old for the new Yahoo upgrades. But, I can answer to this current issue.

I must believe that every believer has a bias in order to remain in his faith. But, I do not believe that such convictions to faith would deny the other person to deny or not be allowed to practice or voice his faith in this forum. I have never witnessed any deletions or corrective measures stressed upon anyones' Christian views that would require removal from this forum. We all stand as Catholics or non-Catholics in this forum. You, Zarove, have made obvious strides to maintain a forum for fair debates between conflicting views. You have demanded evidence to support those views. This, of course, does not mean that you accept those views, but you allow those views to be put through our tests in debate.

I find it very evident that Zarove has never complained about Catholics posting in this forum. Orinally, this forum was intended for non-Catholics. The rules blatantly denied the posting of Catholic doctrine. With strong debates, things were turned around. I strongly believe that Zarove has continued to show an opened door policy for people of all faiths to post here. His bias does not get in the way.

Well, that's how I see things.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.


Sorry for the type-o's, either my keyboard is getting old or my finger are.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.


Hi everyone,

Just for the record, Zarove (and Elp too) are both very unbiased moderators. I think maybe we're getting a little too nit-picky on several fronts here. I would never DREAM of calling Zarove anti- Catholic, nor would I call Elpidio that either. They both show extraordinary reserve and kindness to EVERYONE on the forum. It's like everyone wants these guys to take sides, and guess what, "they ain't supposed to do that!" Or else I see people on the forum trying to manage the forum "through them." That's not fair either. Give 'em a break!!!

Good grief, it's the Lenten season! "Be kind to one another in brotherly love, in honor, preferring one another."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 10, 2005.


Zarove,

But if yo insist, Ill contact a coupl of he regular cahtolci contibutors and ask tem to post on this thread abotu my conduct.

This is an official act of sanction, if hwoever they do nto see my behaviour as Biased, hen you wil be duely warned againt such putrage int e future.

You lied Zarove. You said above you would contact a couple of Catholics if I continued and then contacted them BEFORE I continued. An official act of sanction? My opinion is that you are biased, that hasn't changed. LOL, read the Eucharist thread, if you have taken it to these brothers, your next step would be to take it to the whole church, or just move on and realize not everyone thinks you are doing a good job. That's part of life. Now I don't think for a minute you can let it go, but fully expect some 8 page diatribe on it, but we'll see.

Nor does your claim of my bias sit well wiht how yo wl be percoeved on this board.

Your lying doesn't sit well with me, or I bet with others. Why don't you ask those same two Catholics how they feel about you falsely accusing someone of lying? On the prior thread when you accused my of *lying* when I made an error (on more than one occasion), that doesn't sit well with me. Mumbling about how you use the word lying to mean error and I should understand that is pathetic. You had the chance to be a Christian and say you were sorry, but you chose the way of pride, and insisted that you're having your own private interpretation of the word "lie" is something that others should conform to. If you want to falsely accuse someone of lying, (which is a sin) you shouldn't think that they are going to respect your opinions very much.

Or, I guess the OTHER way I could respond is to use a Zarovism: "Oh, this is ironic, when I said you were biased, in my personal vernacular, biased means you are a great guy, so I was complimenting you. This *exact same* misunderstanding has happened before! What irony it would happen again!" Nope, you won't hear that from me. At least I'm honest in expressing my opinions, and hopefully, in admitting my mistakes.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 11, 2005.


Zarove,

In reading another thread here, I realized that my posting to you has gotten unChristian, and I ask your forgiveness for it. Can't say it won't happen again, but I try one day at a time. Let's drop the whole issue and move on.

You too Jake, if you're out there. I'd rather be going into Lent being whiter than snow, than otherwise.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 11, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ