Necessity of water baptism 3A

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Oops, last cut & paste must have been too long. Try #2

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005

Answers

Frank wrote, "You should go back and reread John 6. The first people to LEAVE Christ did so over just this reason. Christ said "eat my flesh", the people said, "he means spiritually", and Christ said, "no, REALLY eat my flesh, and they said "this teaching is hard, who can accept it"? and left." Go back and re-read John 6:63...

Frank wrote, "There wouldn't have been any problem if He had meant spritually take His body or something, if that had been the case, why would they leave?"

They left because they mis-understood just like Catholics do in that they believe one must literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus... This isn't what Jesus meant and verse 63 bears this out...

Gail wrote, "Well, Kevin, what did Jesus mean when he said "Eat my flesh, drink my blood" if not communion?"

You can also go back and re-read John 6:63...

Faith wrote, "Keven, Most of the time, when someone is baptised, or baptism is mentioned-- the word water is not even in the verse."

I will defer to Zarove's reply to you faith in which he stated: "Faith, the reason "Water" isnt mentioned is because its understood... after all,the term mans "emerced", and as a term freely associaed swith Chrisains of the itme, it was known what wa meant..."

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Rina, You wrote, "hmm, if you turn to Christ and you get baptized, does it really matter at which exact point you become saved? is it at the moment you accept Jesus? a second right afterwards? when you're actually under the water (or sprinkler)? or the moment you emerge from the water? what if you're getting baptized and you drown... you didn't complete the act of baptism, so what the hey."

It does matter... I asked you to answer a question earlier on when you believe one is saved and you did not answer the question...

You wrote, "i mean, all these technicaliities are kinda getting silly, i guess that's my point, KEVIN. if you preach that people don't necessarily have to be baptized, then you run the risk of people being stubborn and refusing to do it cuz they're rebellious. if you preach that you have to be baptized, then you run the risk of people thinking that there just must be extenuating circumstances, what about my gramma who accepted Christ and died before she could get baptized? i mean come on, both focuses are wrong. they both require you to focus on the act of baptism like it's some thing that you can chose or not choose or whatever whatever blah blah blah in order to get to heaven. Christ's words are pretty simple ya know. Believe and be baptized. bottom line. we as humans make too much out of a simple command."

Yes they are pretty simple aren't they Rina??? One must not only believe, but they must also be baptized before they are saved... One is not focusing on faith or baptism if they tell someone everything they must do in order to be saved... Hypothetical situations only cause people to reject the simple commandments of God...

You wrote, "i guess that's why i'm not pushing the whole WHEN DO YOU TECHNICALLY GET SAVED thing anymore. God says stuff, just do it."

I agree however, one must give the whole plan of salvation in order for one to "just do it" as you state above... The point is that one must hear the gospel, believe(or have faith in) the gospel , repent of their sins, confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptized for the remission of their sins... Until one complies with all of what God commands, they are not saved...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

It is Jesus' blood that cleanes us from original sin when we receive Him, by faith, into our hearts. This is being born again, this is baptism. We are not cleansed because we dunk in water. We are cleansed because we have died to that sinful nature with Christ and are raised a new creation in Him

I became convicted by the Word of God and believed the gospel message about who Jesus is and why He died for me. That moment--that revelation--was my moment of rebirth when I died to myself. God blessed me with faith and the Holy Spirit then, not later when I chose to be baptised , which, by-the-way, I chose because I first believed.

I was not born-again when I went through baptism. That was not my magical moment when I could *see* the truth. That real moment happened first. I was anxious to express it in baptism--and I wasn't even sure why because I really didn't know the Bible all that well yet.

It was just something I wanted to do. And I think it was the urging of the Holy Spirit. But I believe the purpose is to help in the ministry of Jesus Christ to lead others hopefully down the same road through expression. Other people hear your testimony, they see that you are on fire--and they hopefully look in the same direction-- wanting the same thing too...

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Kevin, You are in a different topic! You can't take a part where Jesus is speaking to a crowd and answer with a totally different topic -- Jesus instructing his disciples, you have to discuss apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Mindlessly repeating "john 3:63" is no answer. the passages you want are below:

52(CE)Then the Jews (CF)began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of (CG)the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will (CH)raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

The word is now quite physical, Flesh. That is by intent. The Jews present understood Him quite well, just like they did when he said "I am". To claim otherwise is to deliberately avoid the truth.

Jesus had clarified this in the introduction saying:

"47"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes (BU)has eternal life.

48"(BV)I am the bread of life.

49"(BW)Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

50"This is the bread which (BX)comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and (BY)not die.

51"(BZ)I am the living bread that (CA)came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, (CB)he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give (CC)for the life of the world is (CD)My flesh." "

He TOLD them that to believe is to live, but that one must also eat of His Flesh. If you don't believe that, you might as well not bother with getting baptised either.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2005.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.


I just can't help but wonder what makes you take the words in John 6 so absurdly literal? Would you be doing so, had you not been told by the Church how to interpret the meaning? Indeed it is commonly said that the Roman Catholic Church, regarding John 6, especially verses 53-57, 'takes the Bible for what it says,' while the Protestants are somehow seeking to avoid the *clear* teaching of the Lord Jesus. But let's explore the passage together....

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?

Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.

But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.

If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.

John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..

Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.

But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.

Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?

The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.

They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)

Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?

The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.

The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.

There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Wow, Faith, your article is remarkably similar to this one! (I think this fellow is plagiarizing your work. Or, I know, is your real name . . . Tony?) IS THE EUCHARIST THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS? by Tony Pirog (no login)

The Roman Catholic Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the Literal meaning of the text supportive of the RCC doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?

First, we must point out that the LITERAL meaning of the text is obviously not always the CLEAR meaning. The term "literal" is capable of quite a range of definition. If it is pushed to mean absurd literalism, and we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of a text, then obviously the bible is full of complete nonsense. Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10; literally this means Jesus is a door, replete with hinges, knob, and maybe even a lock! And, of course, this would also have to mean that only sheep will be saved . . .

Everyone understands that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.

If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the TRULY LITERAL interpretation will take this into consideration.

John seemed to love the different ways Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other Gospel writers, for in John the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways.

Jesus is "the Light of the world" (8:12) the "good shepherd" (10:11), and the "true vine" (15:1).

Jesus is not literally the SUN in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus WHEN THEY ARE TAKEN ACCORDING to the PLAIN INTENTION of the TEXT: AS SYMBOLS.

You Catholics, like these first-century listeners, cannot see past the symbol to the reality beyond. (2 Tim 3:7 "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth")

Then they said to him" Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (vv.33-35)

The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to see the real significance of Jesus' words. In response Jesus gets real specific - He himself is this bread. The one who "comes to Me" - a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show) - will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.

The reference to "thirsting" seems somewhat out of place here, given only food has been mentioned up to this point; but I believe in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not referring to actual physical consumption of food. He is referring to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (Symbol: hunger & thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.

There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the LITERAL and OBVIOUS meaning of the text. And since this is the first time that "hunger" and "thirst" are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by our Lord must be carried through the rest of the text.

*****

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Busted.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Frank, You really don't know what you are talking about do you??? John 6:63 does answer your question just fine and I did not "mindlessly repeat it" as you assert...

Your quoting of John 6:52-55 and John 6:47-51 does not help you one bit... Please show us where Jesus was talking about the Lord's Supper or Eucharist as you call it in any of these passages??? Sorry, it isn't there... Catholics do a good job of "assuming" with little proof and the proof is not in these passages that you quoted...

If you look at verse 45 which states, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

How are they going to "all" be taught by God???

The answer that Jesus gives is in verse 63 which states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

It is the "words" that Jesus spoke that were "spirit" and "life" He also stated in this verse the "flesh profits nothing" so your assumption that Jesus literally meant one must eat His body and drink His blood is not true... We will all be judged by the words that Jesus spoke in the New Testament and our obedience to His commandments... (See John 12:48).

The words that Jesus spoke are sufficient enough to produce faith in the gospel or "good news" of His death, burial and resurrection...

You wrote, "If you don't believe that, you might as well not bother with getting baptised either."

If you believe that literally eating Jesus body and drinking His blood keeps one saved you are sincerely mistaken... Jesus never stated that one was to "literally" eat His body and drink His blood... Nor did He ever intend anyone to take His words literally when He presided over the last supper... His words were mean to convey that we were to as He stated in Luke 22:19, "..do this in remembrance of Me."

We partake of the Lord's supper in order to remember and proclaim Jesus death until He returns...

I find it amazing that Catholics continue to take passages out of context and when they are shown the truth, they continue to reject what their error because that is not in accordance with what their leader the "pope" has decreed as truth... There is only one truth, and I can assure you that the "pope" doesn't have it...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Kevin, we simply believe the same way our forefathers in the faith believed. There is a connecting line on this issue that dates all the way back to 1st century Christianity.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

"so i'm not making this up. we don't know what to believe anymore. confusion reigns." Ian:

"DOMINUS IESUS" Paragraph 22

"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation".

I understand this to be. That they would be at the Lower realms of the salvation food chain in comparision to someone who has recieved salvation through the Church of Christ. (maybe not the best choice of words for me to use but I think you get the point.

"92 However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”."

(i.e.) If a Catholic does NOT lead and live the life of a Catholic as taught by the Church, thinking that all's cool because we have been baptized and we can go out and have some real fun. Then we are in Really, Really deep dung! or in otherwords no Little rich boy treatment because of the Church

Ian, Read >>ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX AUGUST 10, 1863

"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. ***There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.***" http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

See page 51 of the book Pius IX

They way I see it is If you are a Catholic Don't be Stupid! -- If you are not, Wise up! but even if you are that stupid you still might have a shot.-- If you want I can put that into Latin and make look really official!

Hmm, I think I may have caused a baptism by blood in the other group!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Be careful Michael G...the term "Chruch of hcirst" is used in many ways by may people, but onm a genral forum, wherehteyre IS a Chruch called "The Churhc of Christ", it is wise not to refer tot he Catholic Churhc as "The Churhc of Christ". Granted Catolcis vewi the Chruch as theoen Christ foudned personally, but for the sak of conveneic if nothign else, since this baord is open to all Chruches, let is call the Catholci Chruch the Catholic Chruch, and the Church of chirst the Churhc of Christ, to prevent lingual confusion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.


ZAROVE: Thank you point well taken, I will make sure next time to be clear. Believe or not I actually started to go back to change it but stopped. Now I know why I started to go back.

However I would like to express my Sincere Gratitude to Everyone here for allowing this part of the conversation to run it's course since it was impossible to do in the Catholic forum.

Thank You!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Thats' a large part of why this FOrum currently exists, in "Protest" tot he Catholci forum's poicies. You cna Thank David Ortez for that. The benficial side effec is it allows differencs ot be aired.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Michael You are just plain stupid and need to wise up if you are not Catholic.

There.....how does that feel, Michael? Of course, I don't seriously mean to call anyone stupid. I just wanted you to have a feeling of what you are dishing out to Catholics.

Have a nice day!

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

"They way I see it is If you are a Catholic Don't be Stupid! -- If you are not, Wise up! but even if you are that stupid you still might have a shot.-- If you want I can put that into Latin and make look really official! "--Michael. Would you mind clarifying your comment, Michael? Latin would be ok, if you wish.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Michael Pius XI

imho, Pius XI is really saying that Invincible Igmorance neither damns nor saves. the Ignorance is Ignorance of the Gospel, and it's Invincible - CANNOT be overcome. the Ignorant person cannot commit a sin against the Faith if he has never heard of it. he is not per se damned.

...but , he must never sin - he has the Natural Law, so he knows that by instinct and he must never disobeys it. the guys a Saint. he does not have the Sacraments. he doesn't even know they exist. hhe can't or he wouldn't be ignorant.

DI

if Pius XI is right, the DI is a long, long way from home. DI is perhaps restorationist - i really hope so, but its on a whole different level from Pius XI.

AND THEN.....

Go back and read Cantate Domino and Trent and ....... and you wonder where Pius XI got this from. that would be interesting research.

there's no legalese in Trent or Florence. Ratzinger performs some real gymnastic in DI. why does it have to be so complicated?

just some random thoughts, sorry if they seem abrupt. in a rush, reading Pius XI's history, you know that Roman theology at that time was in a real moribund state. in fact Rome was in a real state [almost a historical pun].

ciao bello.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Rod you inquired the following: "There.....how does that feel, Michael? Of course, I don't seriously mean to call anyone stupid. I just wanted you to have a feeling of what you are dishing out to Catholics." That was a very blunt interpretation of the way I see-- The Encyclical of Pope Pius IX August 10, 1863-- Paragraph 7 and a cross reference to See page 51 of the book Pius IX of the book "Is Feeneyism Catholic" which was listed immediately prior to that statement in my post to Ian.

And just for the record should that be of any value I am a life long Catholic with an extensive family history going back several hundred years in the Catholic Church. Now hopefully this puts things back into perspective for you.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Ah! that would help clear things up for me. Thanks! As for my Catholicism, I'm a distant relative of Adam.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

TRANSFERRED OVER HERE Hello Ian I am so tired of all this talking. The posts on this and other threads are incessant.

But just a couple thoughts for you.

I think Vatican II realized that the Church is *more* than just an outward society of Baptized people (Bellarmine's concept). Rather, just as our Lord Jesus has two natures, human and Divine, so the Church is a *mystery* much bigger than we are used to dealing with. It is the Body of Christ, the fulness of God, and Sacrament of Salvation, among many other realities.

Could it be--just an idea--

1. On one level, the Church is an earthly society of the Baptized, in which Christ calls us to be incorporated and in which we receive the wellsprings of Life.

2. On another level, the order of Grace, the Church is made up of all who receive the working of God's grace, whether they know the name of Christ consciously or not. (Old Testament saints, for example).

Note, Ian! It is possible to assert *opposite* things of Christ according to His two natures. He is finite and infinite, passible and immortal, omnipresent and circumscribed, omnipotent and weak. According to His humanity, He eats, sleeps, hungers, is weary, dies. According to His Divinity, He was upholding creation even as He was lying in the manger or hanging on the cross.

Do you think the Church, His Body, is any less mysterious and seemingly contradictory?

Perhaps Dominus Iesus is reminding us that the Church is much bigger than we think, according to the order of Grace. Remember, St. Justin Martyr could speak of Socrates as being saved by the Logos, and Shepherd of Hermas reminds us that the Church is ancient, as old as time.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 26, 2005.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I htink we need to close this thread, tis too long, I will reopen a repalcement.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Discussion now moved here. http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00Cits This is the new thread.

The Necessity of Water Baptism 2

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Kevin, Was out of town at a meeting, hope you are still around.

You really don't know what you are talking about do you??? John 6:63 does answer your question just fine and I did not "mindlessly repeat it" as you assert...

Sorry about the "mindlessly repeat" bit, I'd rather not have this degenerate into an ad hominem war, o.k.?

Your quoting of John 6:52-55 and John 6:47-51 does not help you one bit... Please show us where Jesus was talking about the Lord's Supper or Eucharist as you call it in any of these passages???

I don't need to, at this point. Staying right here in John is good enough. The first time He talks to the Jews, he uses the word "phagos" meaning "to eat", and when they grumble He comes back using the work "trogos" meaning to gnaw or to chew. There is no doubt He was refering to physically eating here, why else would He deliberately change to a very visceral verb on the subject? That's the point I'm trying to make is that Christ said we must *physically* eat His body, so we can worry about tying it in to the rest of the Bible later. BTW, I don't read Greek personally, and am taking the phagos & trogos on faith, but here's a reputable Catholic group that DOES have people who read Greek who says the same thing. link.

If you look at verse 45 which states, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

How are they going to "all" be taught by God???

The answer that Jesus gives is in verse 63 which states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

It is the "words" that Jesus spoke that were "spirit" and "life" He also stated in this verse the "flesh profits nothing" so your assumption that Jesus literally meant one must eat His body and drink His blood is not true...

"I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is *****my***** flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” "

"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats ***my*** flesh and drinks *****my***** blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For *****my***** flesh is real food and *****my***** blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats *****my***** flesh and drinks *****my***** blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."

Then in your quote He says:

" “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; *****the***** flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life"

Six times Christ says you must eat MY flesh to live to the Jews. When speaking to the Apostles, he does NOT say "MY flesh counts for nothing", but THE flesh counts for nothing. As I said before, He is speaking to two different groups of people about two different things!

First, to the Jews He is giving a command, just like He instructed people to be baptized. Water itself isn't benefial for salvation, but baptism is at Christ's command. Similarly, eating human flesh isn't beneficial, but eating Christ's glorified body and blood at His command most definitely is.

What about your quote then? He is no longer speaking to a crowd and giving his command, but is speaking to His disciples who should know or understand more, not at this point, but at least later when they see the events of his death and resurrection. Christ here does NOT contradict what He said earlier -- if he said ***MY*** flesh counts for nothing you'd have a good case-- but He didn't. He said ***THE*** flesh counts for nothing. The disciples are offended just like the crowd, being Jews they are not to eat blood and certainly not people! He is telling them to listen to and obey the Word, the Spirit that gives life, and not to worry about what sounds to them like cannibalism. The Word is important, not the eating of flesh. Baptism is important, not the water, Life is important, not the flesh.

BUT, you must be dipped in REAL water to be baptised, and you must REALLY eat Christ's body to attain life. That's just how it is. I know it's hard coming from your background to accept, but think it through, the difference between MY *F*lesh that we are commanded to eat and THE flesh that is unimportant.

Here are some quotes from the church fathers who were quite literally taught by the Apostles. Their beliefs should be important to you as they are much more likely to be practicing what was directly taught to them by Christ through the apostles than someething that was invented 2000 years later. link They show that the early Christians believed that we ARE to eat the Body of Christ! You won't find anyone saying that is NOT the case until the 1700's! By that alone you should be able to tell which is true and which isn't.

We partake of the Lord's supper in order to remember and proclaim Jesus death until He returns

We can discuss this later, but should really work through our current topic first.

There is only one truth, and I can assure you that the "pope" doesn't have it...

LOL, for me, this is the grandest irony. I can take 10 sola scriptura Christians, put them in a room, and hear 10 different versions of the Truth, each of them insisting THEY are the correct one, and the others mistaken. The only thing they will all agree on is that the Catholic church which has been teaching the same Truth since Christ is wrong! No thanks!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 29, 2005.



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.


Frank,

You wrote, "Sorry about the "mindlessly repeat" bit, I'd rather not have this degenerate into an ad hominem war, o.k.?"

You were the one who started the "ad hominem"... I didn't continue down that road...

I wrote, "Your quoting of John 6:52-55 and John 6:47-51 does not help you one bit... Please show us where Jesus was talking about the Lord's Supper or Eucharist as you call it in any of these passages???"

To which you replied, "I don't need to, at this point. Staying right here in John is good enough. The first time He talks to the Jews, he uses the word "phagos" meaning "to eat", and when they grumble He comes back using the work "trogos" meaning to gnaw or to chew. There is no doubt He was refering to physically eating here, why else would He deliberately change to a very visceral verb on the subject? That's the point I'm trying to make is that Christ said we must *physically* eat His body, so we can worry about tying it in to the rest of the Bible later. BTW, I don't read Greek personally, and am taking the phagos & trogos on faith, but here's a reputable Catholic group that DOES have people who read Greek who says the same thing. link."

Telling them to "physically" eat His body makes absolutely no sense at all because Jesus was still "physically" there with the Jews when He made that statement... So your contention that Jesus really and literally meant to "physically" eat His flesh and "physically" drink His blood is false... Jesus during the Lord's supper also made the statement in Matthew 26:26, "Take, eat; this is My body." Did Jesus really and literally mean that the disciples were to "physically" eat His body especially when He was still "physically" present with them??? This line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all...

I wrote, "If you look at verse 45 which states, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

To which you replied, "How are they going to "all" be taught by God???"

By reading God's word, the Bible (and doing what it says) that is how "all" will be taught by God... Faith comes from hearing God's word (Romans 10:17), and everything that one needs to become a Christian and for the Christian to live faithfully can be found in God's word the Bible...

Jesus meant what He said in John 6:63... it is the "spirit who gives life" and He also meant what He said in the latter part of that verse which states, "the flesh profits nothing"...

Jesus also meant "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

The Bible (i.e. the word of God) is what produces life... It is the word of God that causes one to have faith, and it is the word of God and through obedience to the word that one can have eternal life...

You wrote, "Six times Christ says you must eat MY flesh to live to the Jews. When speaking to the Apostles, he does NOT say "MY flesh counts for nothing", but THE flesh counts for nothing. As I said before, He is speaking to two different groups of people about two different things!"

That is your assertion however it does not agree with what is plainly revealed in God's word... Did Jesus "physically" and "literally" tell the Jews during the Lord's supper that they were to consume His "physical" body while He was still there in the flesh with them??? Hardly...

You wrote, "First, to the Jews He is giving a command, just like He instructed people to be baptized. Water itself isn't benefial for salvation, but baptism is at Christ's command. Similarly, eating human flesh isn't beneficial, but eating Christ's glorified body and blood at His command most definitely is."

So Jesus gave the Jews a "command", and then when He instructed His disciples then He turned around and said, "Na, I really didn't mean what I said, that was just for the Jews to obey, as for you my disciples, it is just my words that bring life, the flesh profits nothing...??? Again, what you say is nonsense...

You wrote, "What about your quote then? He is no longer speaking to a crowd and giving his command, but is speaking to His disciples who should know or understand more, not at this point, but at least later when they see the events of his death and resurrection. Christ here does NOT contradict what He said earlier -- if he said ***MY*** flesh counts for nothing you'd have a good case-- but He didn't. He said ***THE*** flesh counts for nothing. The disciples are offended just like the crowd, being Jews they are not to eat blood and certainly not people! He is telling them to listen to and obey the Word, the Spirit that gives life, and not to worry about what sounds to them like cannibalism. The Word is important, not the eating of flesh. Baptism is important, not the water, Life is important, not the flesh."

What "flesh" was Jesus talking about during this whole chapter in the book of John??? Was He talking about "the flesh" as you allege, or was He talking about "my flesh" as it is written??? Why would Jesus need to say "my flesh profits nothing" when He explained the literal meaning of His words when He stated, "the words that I speak are spirit and they are life"???

You wrote, "BUT, you must be dipped in REAL water to be baptised, and you must REALLY eat Christ's body to attain life. That's just how it is. I know it's hard coming from your background to accept, but think it through, the difference between MY *F*lesh that we are commanded to eat and THE flesh that is unimportant."

That is your "opinion" of how it "is" Frank... The truth of the matter is that Jesus "never" stated that one is to "literally" eat His body and "literally" drink His blood... If you go back and re- read what the Gentiles were commanded to do when some of the Jews said that they must keep the Law of Moses and be circumcised, there was a big uproar and the apostles and elders gathered together at Jerusalem to discuss the matter in Acts chapter 15... Here is what the Gentiles were required to do after this meeting as written in Acts 15:23-29, "23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'--to whom we gave no such commandment-- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

They were commanded to "abstain from blood" and hence could not "physically" nor "literally" eat Jesus blood... Would Jesus give a commandment that the Gentiles were not able to keep??? I think not...

You wrote, "Here are some quotes from the church fathers who were quite literally taught by the Apostles. Their beliefs should be important to you as they are much more likely to be practicing what was directly taught to them by Christ through the apostles than someething that was invented 2000 years later. link They show that the early Christians believed that we ARE to eat the Body of Christ! You won't find anyone saying that is NOT the case until the 1700's! By that alone you should be able to tell which is true and which isn't."

Just because these so called "church fathers" were "literally" taught by the apostles is no "proof" that they spoke the truth... Paul stated that shortly after his departure "savage wolves" would come in not sparing the flock (See Acts 20:29), and you can rest assured that this very thing did happen... So if you "literally" take what these so called "church fathers" wrote, you are setting yourself up to believe what could be a "lie"...

I wrote, "There is only one truth, and I can assure you that the "pope" doesn't have it..."

To which you replied, "LOL, for me, this is the grandest irony. I can take 10 sola scriptura Christians, put them in a room, and hear 10 different versions of the Truth, each of them insisting THEY are the correct one, and the others mistaken. The only thing they will all agree on is that the Catholic church which has been teaching the same Truth since Christ is wrong! No thanks!"

Yea, and on judgment day there will be billions of Catholics who will here these words, "'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:23).

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 31, 2005.


"The only thing they will all agree on is that the Catholic church which has been teaching the same Truth since Christ"

Yea right... How many times have they "added" to God's word??? Please... This assertion that the Catholic Church has been teaching the same truth is false...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 31, 2005.



Kevin,

Telling them to "physically" eat His body makes absolutely no sense at all because Jesus was still "physically" there with the Jews when He made that statement... So your contention that Jesus really and literally meant to "physically" eat His flesh and "physically" drink His blood is false

C'mon Kevin, using that rationale are you implying his OTHER instructions only apply to when He was present, and not for His church after He was no longer physically there? This is obviously for AFTER His death and resurrection. No one is asserting that He meant for the Jews around Him to get out their steak knives and start chopping off His fingers! LOL, you are the first person I've ever heard who interpretted this to mean that they should start eating Him right then and there! The Romans wouldn't have needed to crucify him if He had enough hungry faithful!

To which you replied, "How are they going to "all" be taught by God???"

I did not reply with that, that is part of YOUR quote. Please read what you write more carefully, then you won't be objecting to yourself.

You wrote, "Six times Christ says you must eat MY flesh to live to the Jews. When speaking to the Apostles, he does NOT say "MY flesh counts for nothing", but THE flesh counts for nothing. As I said before, He is speaking to two different groups of people about two different things!"

That is your assertion however it does not agree with what is plainly revealed in God's word... Did Jesus "physically" and "literally" tell the Jews during the Lord's supper that they were to consume His "physical" body while He was still there in the flesh with them??? Hardly...

It agrees exactly with God's word, as well as with what the first 1500 years' worth of Christians practiced, as I've linked examples of. YOU are the one saying it does not mean what it plainly says, YOU should show where for the first 1500 years Christ's church did what you think it did. The first Protestant groups, the Lutherans and Anglicans both practice some form of communion, where it is NOT done are the churches that splintered off from True Christianity even later. They fell farther and farther from the tree, and lost more and more of the faith, unfortunately getting to the part of losing its most precious aspects.

So Jesus gave the Jews a "command", and then when He instructed His disciples then He turned around and said, "Na, I really didn't mean what I said, that was just for the Jews to obey, as for you my disciples, it is just my words that bring life, the flesh profits nothing...??? Again, what you say is nonsense...

Please reread my answer. The command to eat ***His*** flesh is for everyone,. Telling the apostles not to get hung up on eating *flesh* is for their instruction. I don't know why you have a problem with this, didn't Christ also allow them to eat foods that were forbidden the Jews, or do you insist that all Christians keep Kosher? Don't you see how just telling them to eat *any* human body would be repulsive, and given that they misunderstood most of what else He told them, that they wouldn't understand this either, and that this would need to be clarified for them?

What "flesh" was Jesus talking about during this whole chapter in the book of John??? Was He talking about "the flesh" as you allege, or was He talking about "my flesh" as it is written??? Why would Jesus need to say "my flesh profits nothing" when He explained the literal meaning of His words when He stated, "the words that I speak are spirit and they are life"???

I've explained this several times already.

They were commanded to "abstain from blood" and hence could not "physically" nor "literally" eat Jesus blood... Would Jesus give a commandment that the Gentiles were not able to keep??? I think not...

Umm... ARE we Gentiles forbidden from consuming blood? If your answer is no, like it would be for Christians, you should realize you don't understand what you are reading.

Just because these so called "church fathers" were "literally" taught by the apostles is no "proof" that they spoke the truth... Paul stated that shortly after his departure "savage wolves" would come in not sparing the flock (See Acts 20:29), and you can rest assured that this very thing did happen... So if you "literally" take what these so called "church fathers" wrote, you are setting yourself up to believe what could be a "lie"...

Well, I can only show you the truth, it's up to you to either believe, or turn your back. I'd much rather be in the group that's been doing the same thing since day one, than the group that made up what they believe was right 1700 years later though!

Yea, and on judgment day there will be billions of Catholics who will here these words, "'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!

Perhaps, as there are and have been *many* billions of Catholics, and it isn't up to me to say how many are going to be saved, and how many aren't. As a ratio of saved to unsaved though what *I* would bet is that the RATIO of *saved* Catholics to non-Catholic "Christians" is going to HUGE. We are still following Christ's commands, you are following what you want to. Good luck with that.

"The only thing they will all agree on is that the Catholic church which has been teaching the same Truth since Christ" Yea right... How many times have they "added" to God's word??? Please

LOL, sometimes what is NOT said is more important than what was replied to. I notice you didn't argue with my main point -- that 10 sola scriptura Christians in a single room all believe different things. So you don't like the Christ's Church? Big deal. We'll still be preaching the Word when your weed has withered and blown away.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.


Frank,

You wrote, "C'mon Kevin, using that rationale are you implying his OTHER instructions only apply to when He was present, and not for His church after He was no longer physically there?"

We are "not" talking about "other instructions" Frank... Why do you see the need to try and change the subject???

You wrote, "This is obviously for AFTER His death and resurrection."

Really??? Where does it state that in the scriptures you quoted???

You wrote, "No one is asserting that He meant for the Jews around Him to get out their steak knives and start chopping off His fingers!"

I am not the one who is taking these passages literally... LOL...

You wrote, "LOL, you are the first person I've ever heard who interpretted this to mean that they should start eating Him right then and there!"

So, then you are now making the assumption that Jesus really meant that the Jews were to wait until His death to "physically" eat His body and "physically" drink His blood??? Where does it state this nonsense in the passages you quoted???

You wrote, "The Romans wouldn't have needed to crucify him if He had enough hungry faithful!"

According to your logic, Jesus would have never made it to the cross... LOL...

I wrote, "To which you replied, "How are they going to "all" be taught by God???"

To which you replied, "I did not reply with that, that is part of YOUR quote. Please read what you write more carefully, then you won't be objecting to yourself."

If you would have kept my quotes together, then it would not have been a problem...

I wrote, "That is your assertion however it does not agree with what is plainly revealed in God's word... Did Jesus "physically" and "literally" tell the Jews during the Lord's supper that they were to consume His "physical" body while He was still there in the flesh with them??? Hardly..."

To which you replied, "It agrees exactly with God's word, as well as with what the first 1500 years' worth of Christians practiced, as I've linked examples of. YOU are the one saying it does not mean what it plainly says, YOU should show where for the first 1500 years Christ's church did what you think it did. The first Protestant groups, the Lutherans and Anglicans both practice some form of communion, where it is NOT done are the churches that splintered off from True Christianity even later. They fell farther and farther from the tree, and lost more and more of the faith, unfortunately getting to the part of losing its most precious aspects."

It is your "opinion" that this practice "agrees exactly with God's word"... Anyone who can read can plainly understand that Jesus did not mean for anyone to "literally" and "physically" eat His body and drink His blood... 1500 years of Church history proves nothing...

I wrote, "So Jesus gave the Jews a "command", and then when He instructed His disciples then He turned around and said, "Na, I really didn't mean what I said, that was just for the Jews to obey, as for you my disciples, it is just my words that bring life, the flesh profits nothing...??? Again, what you say is nonsense..."

To which you replied, "Please reread my answer. The command to eat ***His*** flesh is for everyone,. Telling the apostles not to get hung up on eating *flesh* is for their instruction. I don't know why you have a problem with this, didn't Christ also allow them to eat foods that were forbidden the Jews, or do you insist that all Christians keep Kosher? Don't you see how just telling them to eat *any* human body would be repulsive, and given that they misunderstood most of what else He told them, that they wouldn't understand this either, and that this would need to be clarified for them?"

Yes, He clarified it for them all right in John 6:63...

I wrote, "What "flesh" was Jesus talking about during this whole chapter in the book of John??? Was He talking about "the flesh" as you allege, or was He talking about "my flesh" as it is written??? Why would Jesus need to say "my flesh profits nothing" when He explained the literal meaning of His words when He stated, "the words that I speak are spirit and they are life"???"

To which you replied, "I've explained this several times already."

And it is still nonsense...

I wrote, "They were commanded to "abstain from blood" and hence could not "physically" nor "literally" eat Jesus blood... Would Jesus give a commandment that the Gentiles were not able to keep??? I think not..."

To which you replied, "Umm... ARE we Gentiles forbidden from consuming blood? If your answer is no, like it would be for Christians, you should realize you don't understand what you are reading."

The answer is Yes, we Gentile Christians are forbidden from consuming blood... I understand perfectly what I am reading...

I wrote, "Just because these so called "church fathers" were "literally" taught by the apostles is no "proof" that they spoke the truth... Paul stated that shortly after his departure "savage wolves" would come in not sparing the flock (See Acts 20:29), and you can rest assured that this very thing did happen... So if you "literally" take what these so called "church fathers" wrote, you are setting yourself up to believe what could be a "lie"..."

To which you replied, "Well, I can only show you the truth, it's up to you to either believe, or turn your back. I'd much rather be in the group that's been doing the same thing since day one, than the group that made up what they believe was right 1700 years later though!"

No Frank, it is your version of the truth... I can assure you that the only thing 1700 years worth of Catholic doctrine proves is that this is an organization that I would never want to become a part of...

I wrote, "Yea, and on judgment day there will be billions of Catholics who will here these words, "'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"

To which you replied, "Perhaps, as there are and have been *many* billions of Catholics, and it isn't up to me to say how many are going to be saved, and how many aren't. As a ratio of saved to unsaved though what *I* would bet is that the RATIO of *saved* Catholics to non-Catholic "Christians" is going to HUGE."

We will see on judgment day won't we Frank...

You wrote, "We are still following Christ's commands, you are following what you want to. Good luck with that."

No, you are following the Pope's commands, not Christ's... Let's get it straight...

I wrote, "The only thing they will all agree on is that the Catholic church which has been teaching the same Truth since Christ" Yea right... How many times have they "added" to God's word??? Please"

To which you replied, "LOL, sometimes what is NOT said is more important than what was replied to. I notice you didn't argue with my main point -- that 10 sola scriptura Christians in a single room all believe different things. So you don't like the Christ's Church? Big deal. We'll still be preaching the Word when your weed has withered and blown away."

Unfortunately for you this is another assertion of yours that is not true... You can claim "sola scriptura" all you want however, you will be surprised to find that on judgment day "sola scriptura" will be the basis for your judgment... Good luck...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 31, 2005.


A long post, but you've said nothing new. You HAVE however been exposed to the Truth. Unlucky for you when trying to plead ignorance of it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.


The toruble is, Frank, you seem somewhat at a loss.

1: The Protestant reformaiton took plac in he mid,e of the 1500's, no the 1700's.

2: communon is a weekly Practice in the Chruch of christ, and not somethign that is lost, and is usually reerently handled. However, it is veiwed as a commemoraiton fo christ in remberance of Him, NOT the literal body, Bood,soul, and divinity of christ.

However, this eiw ddi no origionat ein the 1700's either, even John Calvin the Protestant held a somewhat similar Veiw, and if you search, so did the waldenses and sevral other groups throughout history, and many Fathers of the chruch thguht it symbolic rather than Literal. The revailign fathers taught literalism in the passages, btu soem disagreed.

3: Frank, perhaps the old addage " More flies with Hoiney' can be in orde here. try presenting Cahtolci beelifs in a charitale way, rather than in aconfrontaitonal way, and discusison will becoem a delight and more progress toward mutual understanding will occure.

Kevin, a pointer.Try to teach hm what you beleive, rather than allowign him to just pummlt your beleif and clalign him wrong. I know hes come of as a hard case in this thred, but you can likewise be stubbirn. So, try the gentle hand.Not that you did anythin wring per sey, but yur explanaitosn may be better serve with elaboraiton.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 01, 2005.


Zarove,

As I said above, the first churches to break off from Catholicism HAD communion (the 1500s), and LATER this practice fell away as well. When you say "church of Christ" do this too, it is hard to reply to because people like the SDA's and Christian Scientists BOTH call themselves "Church of Christ", as do many others! To say they all do something is incorrect. Which specific "church of Christ" are you referring to?

3: Frank, perhaps the old addage " More flies with Hoiney' can be in orde here. try presenting Cahtolci beelifs in a charitale way, rather than in aconfrontaitonal way, and discusison will becoem a delight and more progress toward mutual understanding will occure

Oh, I attempted to, I even apologized early on when I realized *I* was setting a bad tone, but after Kevin decided to pronounce that Billions of Catholics were going to Hell, I figured he wasn't interested in discussion, wouldn't you agree? Zarove, people like Faith and Kevin *don't care* to find the Truth, they want the Bible to mean what THEY want it to mean. They are just as sure that they are correct in their beliefs as a Muslim suicide bomber, and since they accept no authority to tell them otherwise, they are never going to change.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 01, 2005.



" More flies with Hoiney' can be in orde here. "

?? I was hoping that such an atmosphere was in everyone's desire. But, it has been a turbulent ride since David's grand opening of this forum. Things always get bent out of shape when one group starts with the "Catholics Are Going To Hell" preaching. It is one thing to think it, quite another to say it. Have we noticed that there never has been a Catholic making any claims that non-Catholics are destined to Hell because of their Protestant beliefs? Well, except for the Traditionals, that is.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.


Rod,

LOL, remember that Lefebvre and everyone in formal adherence to his schism are *excommunicated*, so one could say they aren't really faithful Catholics either.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 01, 2005.


Yes, but the Traditionals will argue to the contrary. As for me, I tend to believe that some Protestants do have a chance for Salvation if they have embraced some of the basic Catholic doctrines. At least, that's what the Catholic Church seems to be saying. Again, the Sedevacantists (sp?) will raise a flag over that doctrine.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.


Zarove,

Of course you are correct...

I am trying to do better...

This must be my first reaction to everyone I have already had contact with over in the Catholic forum...

I am suprised that he didn't immediately go into ad hominem attacks like were thrown out at me over in the Catholic forum... He started to go down that road and then decided against it... :-)

You are correct in that I am stubborn... This is something else that I will learn to do better in the future... Practice makes perfect...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 01, 2005.


Zarove, As I said above, the first churches to break off from Catholicism HAD communion (the 1500s), and LATER this practice fell away as well.

{Thats noce, but Church of christ has weekly commuion, so its irrelevant to mention what other Chruhces do.}-Zarove

When you say "church of Christ" do this too, it is hard to reply to because people like the SDA's and Christian Scientists BOTH call themselves "Church of Christ",

{what I mean bu it, as I stated to Cameron before, is the chruch that literlaly is named that, and not one merley usign it as a title, suhc as "The Catholic hcurhc is the Chruhc of christ". Rather, the name of he group is "Churhc of Christ". Tp spare evrryone confusion, the NAME of the instetution, rather or nt you agree wiht it, is usually settled here. Catholics belong tot he Catholic Chruhc.Baptosts belong to the Baptost chrich. Churhc of christ members belogn tot he chruhc of Christ. it snot an afix title, its the name of the spacific Chruch.}-Zarove

as do many others! To say they all do something is incorrect. Which specific "church of Christ" are you referring to?

{The spacific Chruch which calls itsself "The Church of Christ' spacificlaly. he one acutlaly named that. The seventh Day advnetists may use it as a title, much like the Catholic hruhc does, but if you look in a Phone book, you will see Cahtolic Parishes listed as "Catholic" and seventh day adventists listed as "seventh Day adventists", and Church of christ listed as "Churhc of christ".}- Zarove

3: Frank, perhaps the old addage " More flies with Hoiney' can be in orde here. try presenting Cahtolci beelifs in a charitale way, rather than in aconfrontaitonal way, and discusison will becoem a delight and more progress toward mutual understanding will occure

Oh, I attempted to, I even apologized early on when I realized *I* was setting a bad tone, but after Kevin decided to pronounce that Billions of Catholics were going to Hell, I figured he wasn't interested in discussion, wouldn't you agree?

{I ont see you repsonding with charity either, thats the issue.Kevin is Kevin, and it is hs beleif that everyone not part of he chruch of christ ( A spacific grou where th ebuldings they worshp in hang signs that say "Church of Christ") teaches that. Not all Churhc of christ memebrs beelive along thse lines, but soem do, and Kevi isone of them.Like the Trads, I tolerate these beleifs, but when it becomes aggressive I step in. Your posst are becomign insiteful, not Kevin's, who was simpely blowing steam over your forwafd attetude. if you stay long enough, you relaise Im not choosign sides on this, Im just clalig it like I see it.

Besides, evenm Catholcis beelove Billions of Catholcis ae going to Hell, amd billions of others. }-Zarove

Zarove, people like Faith and Kevin *don't care* to find the Truth, they want the Bible to mean what THEY want it to mean.

{But the same arugment can apply to Cahtolcis, and i used agaisnt Catholics when peope try to "Show them where they are wrong". its arguments like the " we ar eobviously right and they are not willign to listen" variety that make posting more dificult.}-Zarove

They are just as sure that they are correct in their beliefs as a Muslim suicide bomber,

{Or a firm Catholic... so? Beign firm in a beleif is not the same as beign wllfuly ignorant, and oen can rais he same objeciton agaisnt you, such is not prodictive to a onversation however.}-Zarove

and since they accept no authority to tell them otherwise, they are never going to change.

{As opposed to you who simpey blindgens them with your own authority...that is the issue.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 01, 2005.



Frank,

You wrote, "Oh, I attempted to, I even apologized early on when I realized *I* was setting a bad tone, but after Kevin decided to pronounce that Billions of Catholics were going to Hell, I figured he wasn't interested in discussion, wouldn't you agree?"

I have said repeatedly in this forum that if someone can convince me that my beliefs are in error, then I will change my beliefs... It is obvious that you do not have the same intentions... We had numerous discussions in the past over in the Catholic forum, have you already forgotten them so quickly???

You wrote, "Zarove, people like Faith and Kevin *don't care* to find the Truth, they want the Bible to mean what THEY want it to mean."

Now this is an assertion Frank that is just not true... I continue to search for the truth every single day when I ready my Bible... You promote your "Catholic" version of the "truth" and I say that your version of the truth is not in God's word and you have yet to convince me that I am wrong in this belief...

You wrote, "They are just as sure that they are correct in their beliefs as a Muslim suicide bomber, and since they accept no authority to tell them otherwise, they are never going to change."

As I have said and will continue to say if someone can show me the error of my way, I will most certainly change...

Are you willing to do the same Frank???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 01, 2005.


Zarove,

I had real trouble trying to decipher what in your post was *new*, and what was quoted. You should consider using bold or italics for your quotes to make it understandable.

That being said, I think I understood your point. Try typing ""church of Christ"" into Google and see what you come up with. My point is that more than one sect calls themselves "church of Christ", whereas I've never heard the Catholic church refered to as "church of Christ, Catholic", and if you find one that does, link it for me!

They are just as sure that they are correct in their beliefs as a Muslim suicide bomber,

{Or a firm Catholic... so? Beign firm in a beleif is not the same as beign wllfuly ignorant, and oen can rais he same objeciton agaisnt you, such is not prodictive to a onversation however.}-Zarove

and since they accept no authority to tell them otherwise, they are never going to change.

{As opposed to you who simpey blindgens them with your own authority...that is the issue

You've completely missed the point. The difference between a Catholic and a sola scriptura Christian or Muslim suicide bomber is that the Catholic church has the AUTHORITY to definitively state what the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture is. Therefore someone who says "the Bible says I should have an abortion" will be told that they are WRONG, whereas if you say the same to the sola scriptura person, they'll say, "that's YOUR opinion, but to my reading abortion is o.k., and you can't tell me differently" the same way the suicide bomber thinks that their interpretation of the Koran is the only correct one, and since there is no central authority, no one can tell them differently.

See the difference now? One group recognizes the authority of the church, to *define* what is really True, the other only recognizes thier *own* authority, which is why you've got so many different Protestants all claiming to have the "truth".

I have said repeatedly in this forum that if someone can convince me that my beliefs are in error, then I will change my beliefs...

So what? The point is the only person you believe can tell you what the correct belief is, is YOU! Here's a question for you Kevin, let's say that tomorrow you decided that Acts was an UNinspired book of the Bible. Who do YOU believe has the authority to tell you otherwise? If you prayed and prayed on it, and were truly and honestly convinced that the book was uninspired, would you recognize someone else's authority to tell you you were wrong?

As I have said and will continue to say if someone can show me the error of my way, I will most certainly change...

Are you willing to do the same Frank

I most certainly am. The point is Kevin, that I think I'm at least partially wrong in a lot of things *right now*. The church however is NOT. I recognize their authority to correct me when I stray. Who has authority over you Kevin? Do you think you are doing anything incorrectly now?

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 02, 2005.


Zarove, I had real trouble trying to decipher what in your post was *new*, and what was quoted. You should consider using bold or italics for your quotes to make it understandable.

{Not too hard, I use the {} Brackets...}-Zarove

That being said, I think I understood your point.

{Do you?}-Zarove

Try typing ""church of Christ"" into Google and see what you come up with. My point is that more than one sect calls themselves "church of Christ",

{But only oen grup calls itssef "The chruhc of christ' with no affix, this is the entire ame of the grup... and for conveneince its easier to refer to them as such... I mean lets face rality, the chruch of christ i not the United chruhc of Christ or the Churhc of chist- Temple Lot. We can see distinctions i the name, and only oen thats just "Chruhc of Christ".}-Zarove

whereas I've never heard the Catholic church refered to as "church of Christ, Catholic", and if you find one that does, link it for me!

{But for the sake of clarity, woiuld it not just be easier to say "Catholic Chruch"? Thats all I am sayng here...}

They are just as sure that they are correct in their beliefs as a Muslim suicide bomber,

{Or a firm Catholic... so? Beign firm in a beleif is not the same as beign wllfuly ignorant, and oen can rais he same objeciton agaisnt you, such is not prodictive to a onversation however.}-Zarove

and since they accept no authority to tell them otherwise, they are never going to change.

{As opposed to you who simpey blindgens them with your own authority...that is the issue

You've completely missed the point. The difference between a Catholic and a sola scriptura Christian or Muslim suicide bomber is that the Catholic church has the AUTHORITY to definitively state what the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture is.

{So ods the Muslims usicide Bomber. The Imims tellthem, and they have an unbroken lien of siccession back to Mohammad...}-Zarove

Therefore someone who says "the Bible says I should have an abortion" will be told that they are WRONG, whereas if you say the same to the sola scriptura person, they'll say, "that's YOUR opinion, but to my reading abortion is o.k., and you can't tell me differently"

{If there that irrational then they only want to prop up there beleifs, but nto all Sola scripotura adherants beelive such base don eprsonal preference, this is a perjporative statement backed up only by vanity.

Many pepel change there veows BECAUSE of wht they read, and not based upon what they alreayd want to beelive, usgn certian portiosn as proof texts.

To sya otherwise and to generalise all christaisn inthis way is to present a false image of Sola Scirptura and thus is inadequate for a discussion.

Inded, the raio of pro-Aboriton Christaisn is far less than those opposed, and most Soca Sciptura Christaisn oppsoe Aboriton, and, to shock you perhaps, many Catholics likewise endore and support Abortion on Demand, even marchivn with "Im Catholic and support abortion' signs.

The issue is about accpetign and rejectign the sciptus plain teaching in that instance, not in the folly of sola scriptura, and the entire arume begs the queastion o intent...}-Zarove

the same way the suicide bomber thinks that their interpretation of the Koran is the only correct one, and since there is no central authority, no one can tell them differently.

{But all major and minor branches of Islam have the sme line of thouht as Catholis, and except for western Muslims, follow there Imims...}-Zarove

See the difference now? One group recognizes the authority of the church, to *define* what is really True, the other only recognizes thier *own* authority, which is why you've got so many different Protestants all claiming to have the "truth".

{And What manner of meanign poses this to a dicusion with Kevin?}- Zarove

I have said repeatedly in this forum that if someone can convince me that my beliefs are in error, then I will change my beliefs...

So what? The point is the only person you believe can tell you what the correct belief is, is YOU!

{Though Kevin can be obstenant and often ignroes plain discourse, this is an unkind statement made out of arrogant presumption.We all have our faults, but I do not see Kevin's major fault beign self engrandisement. The rst I cut out since its to Kevin.}-Zarove



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 02, 2005.


Zarove,

{But only oen grup calls itssef "The chruhc of christ' with no affix, this is the entire ame of the grup... and for conveneince its easier to refer to them as such... I mean lets face rality, the chruch of christ i not the United chruhc of Christ or the Churhc of chist- Temple Lot. We can see distinctions i the name, and only oen thats just "Chruhc of Christ".}-Zarove

Have you actually done the Google search yourself? Many people call themselves "church of Christ" without a suffix. Are you stating you believe they all have the exact same doctrines?

. The difference between a Catholic and a sola scriptura Christian or Muslim suicide bomber is that the Catholic church has the AUTHORITY to definitively state what the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture is.

{So ods the Muslims usicide Bomber. The Imims tellthem, and they have an unbroken lien of siccession back to Mohammad...}-Zarove

I'm sorry, but that comparison is false. If you go to one Immam, and he tells you one thing, you can go to a DIFFERENT Immam and get told something else, but neither of the Immams has authority over the other. This is exactly like Protestant sects, but completely UNLIKE Christ's church, the Catholic church, where there is only ONE correct opinion, and you either follow it, or you don't. Make no mistake within the church there are many people, and some of them believe and even promote ideas that are wrong, but the church's opinion is ALWAYS recognized as the correct one by people who wish to remain Catholic. To not do so eventually ends up in excommunication.

{If there that irrational then they only want to prop up there beleifs, but nto all Sola scripotura adherants beelive such base don eprsonal preference, this is a perjporative statement backed up only by vanity.

No it's not. If you believe in sola scriptura, who'se interpretation BUT your own do you consider *definitively* the most valid? It's vanity on YOUR part to say that people who'se beliefs you find objectionable are somehow abusing sola scriptura, but people who you agree with are doing things "correctly". If you don't think that there is a church over you to *definitively* say what's right or wrong you have NO BASIS to tell someone else they are wrong and you aren't.

Many pepel change there veows BECAUSE of wht they read, and not based upon what they alreayd want to beelive, usgn certian portiosn as proof texts.

To sya otherwise and to generalise all christaisn inthis way is to present a false image of Sola Scirptura and thus is inadequate for a discussion

Of course people change their beliefs based on what they read, I never said otherwise. The trouble is they can just as easily change their beliefs to an INcorrect interpreation as a correct one. OTOH if you don't care whether or not people believe in the True interpretation, but only want them to believe something, sola scriptura is just fine.

Inded, the raio of pro-Aboriton Christaisn is far less than those opposed, and most Soca Sciptura Christaisn oppsoe Aboriton, and, to shock you perhaps, many Catholics likewise endore and support Abortion on Demand, even marchivn with "Im Catholic and support abortion' signs

I never said differntly. Again, the difference is that the CATHOLIC people that are doing this are going AGAINST the church, and although you are unlikely to see it, in theory they could be denied communion or even excommunicated for obstinately preaching the same, whereas a sola scriptura person who believes abortion is moral is just as justified as one who doesn't. I can't believe you can't see a difference there. :-(

The issue is about accpetign and rejectign the sciptus plain teaching in that instance

LOL, In YOUR opinion the teaching is plainly wrong, in THEIRS it's plain it's acceptable. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? What arrogance you have!

Though Kevin can be obstenant and often ignroes plain discourse, this is an unkind statement made out of arrogant presumption

If I'm mistaken, I'm big enough to take it back, and I may very well be misjudging him. What church authority does Kevin recognize to *definitively* tell him his beliefs are wrong, and that he MUST change them to be truly following Christ?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 03, 2005.


You must ask Kevin this, however,th Imims do follow a succession from mohammad.

This said, it strikes me as od that you woidl follow withhtis logic even in the face of opposite facts. again, the Bile as a Printed text is limited in the number of possible interpretations,even wrong oens, it can offer any givin reader.

One canot, for instance, read " In the begining. God created the Heavens and the earth" and ausme this means " In the begining, Gaia came fourth and gave Birht to Uranus, later mating with him and prodicing the Titains."

Some verses allow only a singular interpretationn.

Careufl reading and understanding of Genre and context will lead most o similar if not identical cpnlcusions, with most divergences beign base don Docitriens seperate from what is commonly agreed upon.

Often not direclty relatign ot the text, but to politics. Suhc as the Osuthern baptosts leavign the Bapotst convention no over the Scriptureal interpretaiton, but ther elibral stand IN SPITE OF there scirptural standing.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 03, 2005.


Another thing you may want to reconsider, your augments arent very convencing, because they ar einternal arugments for vlaidity.They presuppose the prmacy of rome.

An outsider, such as Kevin, wil not be convenced that Catholiism is th one true Chruch ounded by Christ for all men based on you syaign this is so, or sayign Jesus said so. Your arugments of unity also fal to acocunt for the Unity in the Churhc of Christ.

Further, other Chruches, such as the Churhc of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, make similar claims.

Woudl you beleive the Mormons that Gordon Hinckley is the true and living prophet on earth? why not? ts obvious tat God restored his churhc, and to beleive Joseph Smith was not a ture Prophet is to deny the power of God hismelf when he established this churhc for all Men, and rsots the preisthoiod.

Teh arugments form Mormons woidl sound convencign to those alreayd Mormon, but woudl sound remarkabely flat to a Non-Mormon, and less so to a compelte outsider not aware of their teahcings.

To sim,ey declare the Catholci chruc true and force others to acknoeledge this withotu relaly reasonign form their end, expectign them instead ot adopt your reaosning to arrive at the conclusion you have, will not win you any Advance to your cause.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 03, 2005.


A yahoo searhc revelas most "Churhc of Christ' hit are, indeed, Kevins.

The firts 20 ae listed. I htink you cinuse the churhc of chirsts Autonomism wiht sprate curhces with seperate teahcings. Remmeber, eahc Chruhcof christ is SEPERATE.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Church+of+christ&sp=1&ei=UTF- 8&fr=my_top&SpellState=n-1273621434_q-t1KmnmT1sDkIgH%2FbUzI4XwABAA%40% 40

United Church of Christ -No

churches of Christ -Yes

Church of Christ, Scientist -No

Olive St. church of Christ -Yes

Church of Christ -Yes

Churches of Christ on the Web -Yes

Who are the churches of Christ? -Yes

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Church -No

Zion Church Of Christ -Yes

church of Christ - Kissimmee Florida, We speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where the Bible is silent. -Yes

Essene Church of Christ -No

Church of Christ -Yes

Atlanta Church of Christ -Yes

Celestial Church of Christ - Worldwide Web Site -No

Church of Christ Links -Yes

CHURCH of CHRIST, Oroville, Ca. -Yes

church of Christ of Kearney Nebraska with an International Bible Study -Yes

Munfordville Church of Christ -Yes

ChurchZip...Find the nearest church of Christ anywhere in the world. - Yes

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) -No

Katy Church of Christ -Yes

Turlock Church of Christ -Yes

Busoga Church of Christ -Yes

Church of Christ--Marshfield, Missouri -Yes

Linary Church of Christ: Home page -Yes

Orangevale Church of Christ -Yes

Davis Church of Christ -Yes

Southwest Church of Christ -Yes

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 03, 2005.


22 OF 25 IS NOT BAD...Of course this was Yahoo, what does Google possess?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 03, 2005.

Zarove,

This said, it strikes me as od that you woidl follow withhtis logic even in the face of opposite facts. again, the Bile as a Printed text is limited in the number of possible interpretations,even wrong oens, it can offer any givin reader.

One canot, for instance, read " In the begining. God created the Heavens and the earth" and ausme this means " In the begining, Gaia came fourth and gave Birht to Uranus, later mating with him and prodicing the Titains."

Some verses allow only a singular interpretationn

O.k. then, is the Earth 10,000 years old as some protestants believe, or millions as others belive? Was the Earth created in a literal 7 days or was there evolution with dinosaurs, etc. before man? I think people have found controversy even in your straightforward areas, not to mention the places that are confusing to start out with.

Careufl reading and understanding of Genre and context will lead most o similar if not identical cpnlcusions,

simple things like "bob begat earl" might not have any argument, but anything that MEANS something as far as making a decision goes sure has it's share of debate. people even debate the centerpoints of Christian worship such as baptism and communion!

Another thing you may want to reconsider, your augments arent very convencing, because they ar einternal arugments for vlaidity.They presuppose the prmacy of rome. An outsider, such as Kevin, wil not be convenced that Catholiism is th one true Chruch ounded by Christ for all men based on you syaign this is so, or sayign Jesus said so. Your arugments of unity also fal to acocunt for the Unity in the Churhc of Christ.

It would be a real feeling of power to think that YOU are the one who decided what Scripture means and what it doesn't. YOU are the interpretter of the Word of God! How do you expect someone who believes that to give that up and let someone else tell them what is and is NOT True? I don't think it's likely.

Further, other Chruches, such as the Churhc of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, make similar claims

The Mormons believe that Christ's church ended on earth, to be re- established by Joseph Smith. Do YOU believe that? To most Christians, they'd agree that is "unBiblical", not to mention the Mormon belief about God having a wife and each devout mormon getting their own universe to rule with their wife as God equal to our God. Do YOU believe that is equal to the Catholic's claim given their otherwise non-Christian theology?

To sim,ey declare the Catholci chruc true and force others to acknoeledge this withotu relaly reasonign form their end

How do you reason from their end? How do you take someone who 1. does not recognize all of the Bible as being inspired and 2. does not recognize the authority of the church to define for them what is True and what isn't to do those things? I think you'd have an easier time of telling them that they are the sole interpretter of what is true and what isn't, and if they didn't believe a book of the Bible was inspired, they didn't need to obey it. Would you agree with that?

On your laundry list of churches, it is similar on Google with the addition of some, and not having many of those on there. The question though is "do they all have the *same doctrines*, even though they share a common name?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 03, 2005.


Zarove, This said, it strikes me as od that you woidl follow withhtis logic even in the face of opposite facts. again, the Bile as a Printed text is limited in the number of possible interpretations,even wrong oens, it can offer any givin reader.

One canot, for instance, read " In the begining. God created the Heavens and the earth" and ausme this means " In the begining, Gaia came fourth and gave Birht to Uranus, later mating with him and prodicing the Titains."

Some verses allow only a singular interpretationn

O.k. then, is the Earth 10,000 years old as some protestants believe, or millions as others belive?

{That's a side isue that avoids my point... Overall 90% of the Biblical narrative is agreed upon by the ovewhelming majority of Christains...}-Zarove

Was the Earth created in a literal 7 days or was there evolution with dinosaurs, etc. before man?

{see above... Moot and erelevant...}-Zarove

I think people have found controversy even in your straightforward areas, not to mention the places that are confusing to start out with.

{But the majority? And those that find issue, are they relay basing their undertanding " On scripoture alone"? For instance, those Christaisn today who sya Homosexualty is not a sin do so not because of their sincere studt of the scriptures, and firm beleif, but raher because of their owen politiclaly motivated reinterrperations of the text designed to meet a spacufuc end.

The overwhelming majoirt undertsand sin as sin, and agree on the basics, or fundamentals.}-Zarove

Careufl reading and understanding of Genre and context will lead most o similar if not identical cpnlcusions,

simple things like "bob begat earl" might not have any argument, but anything that MEANS something as far as making a decision goes sure has it's share of debate. people even debate the centerpoints of Christian worship such as baptism and communion!

{which isnt relevant since th eoverwhelming majority agree on the basics, and show a general concensus.}-Zarove

Another thing you may want to reconsider, your augments arent very convencing, because they ar einternal arugments for vlaidity.They presuppose the prmacy of rome. An outsider, such as Kevin, wil not be convenced that Catholiism is th one true Chruch ounded by Christ for all men based on you syaign this is so, or sayign Jesus said so. Your arugments of unity also fal to acocunt for the Unity in the Churhc of Christ.

It would be a real feeling of power to think that YOU are the one who decided what Scripture means and what it doesn't.

{It is not about powrr, its baout your approah to discussions and debates...One can couner that its a feelign of power to have a chruch instetution bakc yo up 100% and claim this means God almighty is n yor side, its an invalid argument that yeilds no benefit.}-Zarove

YOU are the interpretter of the Word of God!

{Everyone is ultimatley, even Cahtolcis make deteminations on how they apply the teahcigns t their lives, and rathe or not to acept the teahcgns htey heard, ect...}-Zarove

How do you expect someone who believes that to give that up and let someone else tell them what is and is NOT True? I don't think it's likely.

{And I htink you are makign unfair generalisations and useless blanket arugments. As I said, cant we say " Catholcis wont give up their belif int h churhc becayse they dotn want to loose the sence of Poser that the structure an Authority gives them." Its not relaly proven that all Catholcis ar elike this, so the arugmednt is rellay nohtign but an attack made to strengthen oens ie by discreditign another. Same for your arguemn on Sola scirptura, its not rlelay nvalidatign the theory.}-Zarove

Further, other Chruches, such as the Churhc of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, make similar claims

The Mormons believe that Christ's church ended on earth, to be re- established by Joseph Smith.

{Correct. However, theor beleifs arent what we where discussing. The point is if you run into a Mormon who makes htis assuption, and asusmes everyoen else makes the same asumption, e can use the same kind of faulty logicthat you are employing to support Cahtolisism. Assumign everyone alreayd agrees with you on the starting point will prvent progress in discusion, an insisting you are right withut consideirng anothers pint of eiw will not vonvence them that you are.}-Zarove

Do YOU believe that?

{It doesnt matter what I beelive. The oint is if you encounered a Mormon your statements about cahtolic Primacy and churhc stricture wudkl be similar, and if you reid to prve him wrong and he used the same argumens you used, you woudln get very far ince he woud be refusing to se i form your end.}-Zarove

To most Christians, they'd agree that is "unBiblical", not to mention the Mormon belief about God having a wife and each devout mormon getting their own universe to rule with their wife as God equal to our God.

{That's not a Univesal Mormon beleif, thats a beleif only of the Latter day sains of Utah. Nonehteless, I think you missed my overall point...

The point is the Mormons make the same sorts of arugments you are currently makign agaisnt Sola scriptura, and yor generalisaitons, charecterisations,and argumens of churc prmacy assume Kevin alreayd acepts all o that, which he clealry doesnt...

Since his starting point diverges fom your own, its not wise to blindgeon him over the head with your veiw as iv you hav the right to step in and declare him worng wihtout evidence based on starting premise that he doesnt acept a valid.}-Zarove

Do YOU believe that is equal to the Catholic's claim given their otherwise non-Christian theology?

{whose to say its Nonchristian? Hoiw do you argue agaisn thtem saying the reason their veis diverge form your CahtolciVeiws is becaus of hte Gfreat apostacy?

again, the point is you are so blidned by your point of veiw that you asusme others see it the same way you do, thus preventign you from graspign even this point.

Since Kevin doesnt agree with your veiw of Histry or your veiw of Chruhc Order, your standard arugments will not work.

Try seeing it form his end and not blindgeoning him to death...}- Zarove

To sim,ey declare the Catholci chruc true and force others to acknoeledge this withotu relaly reasonign form their end

How do you reason from their end?

{By learnign what they beleive, then reasoning form that point o your own, thus briding the gap, rathe than assume they must beginw hee tou begin and accept your own premise...after all yo ar ein dialouge iwht them.}-Zarove

How do you take someone who 1. does not recognize all of the Bible as being inspired and

{The toruble wiht this line is hat you asusme the Additional Books that are contested, that you call Deuterocanon, are Inspired. Its a Begging of thr queasiton.

Our Hypothetical Mormon can ask " How can I take seriosuly anyone who doesngt think he Book of Mormon is Inspired". Simpley declaring the Books Catholcis call deuterocannon inpsired dos not offer proof that they are insired works that belong in the Bible.

Assumign Kevin MUST accept them as Inpsired or else dosnt accept he compelte Bible prevents you from dialouge.}-Zarove

2. does not recognize the authority of the church to define for them what is True and what isn't to do those things?

{Does he relaly veiw this as true though? what do you know of Kevins Veiws, exaclty?}-Zarove

I think you'd have an easier time of telling them that they are the sole interpretter of what is true and what isn't, and if they didn't believe a book of the Bible was inspired, they didn't need to obey it. Would you agree with that?

{No, I dont. The Biblical Canon is prety well agreed to by most ouside of Catholisism, and he arugments for removing the contested books are less simplistic than you hear over on Catholci Forum. we won get into them in this thread, sicne its a time consuming topic, but the bottom line basiclaly is that your presumption of their midnset is disturbing, and fails to account for the real approacj used by Sola Scrptura.}-Zarove

On your laundry list of churches, it is similar on Google with the addition of some, and not having many of those on there.

{Its not a Laundry List of hcurhces, most of the sites where to spacific chruches of christ foudn in spacific locations, but the same Orginisation.}-Zarove

The question though is "do they all have the *same doctrines*, even though they share a common name?

{And the answer is "Yes". They do more htan share a common name, and most on the list where the same orginisation... just different locations. It owidl be like askign if "Saint Patrics Catholic Parish" in Nacshville had the same doctorines as " St.Mary's Churhc in Murfessburro".

The divergence wa snot Multiple orginisaitons called "The Churhc of Christ" but differing LOCATIONS for SPACIFIC Chruches of christ.}- Zarove



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 03, 2005.


O.k. then, is the Earth 10,000 years old as some protestants believe, or millions as others belive?

{That's a side isue that avoids my point... Overall 90% of the Biblical narrative is agreed upon by the ovewhelming majority of Christains...}-Zarove

Was the Earth created in a literal 7 days or was there evolution with dinosaurs, etc. before man?

{see above... Moot and erelevant...}-Zarove

You first said there was NO disagreement, now you say it's moot and irrelevant. Which is it? The point is there is DISAGREEMENT over even straightforward things. You can't just say "irrelevant" to everything you don't like! "oh, they disagree over abortion? that's moot and irrelevant." bah.

The overwhelming majoirt undertsand sin as sin, and agree on the basics, or fundamentals.}-Zarove

Careufl reading and understanding of Genre and context will lead most o similar if not identical cpnlcusions,

It's unbelievable that in a group of people who refuse to even call themselves a denomination because they don't accept any "man-made" creeds, catechisms, or church manuals, ANYHTING that would yield the same interpretation of the Bible that everyone would believe the same thing exactly. I don't know why you are arguing this, I can't believe you really believe it in your heart of hearts. Are you trying to convince me of a falsehood? I've also read COCers say that they are THE True church, in place since ad 30, which I think is a bit tough to reconcile with their branching off of presbyterianism (in 1849?), again, correct me if I'm factually wrong here.

The Mormons believe that Christ's church ended on earth, to be re- established by Joseph Smith.

{Correct. However, theor beleifs arent what we where discussing.

then why did you bring them up?

{It doesnt matter what I beelive. The oint is if you encounered a Mormon your statements about cahtolic Primacy and churhc stricture wudkl be similar, and if you reid to prve him wrong and he used the same argumens you used, you woudln get very far ince he woud be refusing to se i form your end.}-Zarove

Funny you should mention this. I've got several Mormon coworkers, and their take is "it's us or it's you", but think that the protestant denominations (on protestants who refuse the title of denomination like the COC) are foundationless. Pretty funny huh?

{That's not a Univesal Mormon beleif, thats a beleif only of the Latter day sains of Utah. Nonehteless, I think you missed my overall point...

What other belief is there? You can educate me here, I didn't know there was a divergent belief on this.

Since Kevin doesnt agree with your veiw of Histry or your veiw of Chruhc Order, your standard arugments will not work.

Try seeing it form his end and not blindgeoning him to death...}- Zarove

for the 50th time you CAN'T see it from his point of view because his point of view is that HE ALONE determines what's true and what isn't. The elders of the COC are only supposed to be teachers/preachers. They have NO authority to determine the interpretaion of the Bible to their flock (correct me if I'm wrong here). These folks won't even call themselves a denomination, or admit to a fixed set of beliefs (as that would be "man made"). How on Earth do you expect to see it from his point of view when that point of view is different for every single member of the COC?

Assumign Kevin MUST accept them as Inpsired or else dosnt accept he compelte Bible prevents you from dialouge.}-Zarove

How do you convince someone that the Word of God is True if they don't recognize all of the Word in the first place? It's like saying in order to debate with an abortionist you must first accept that abortion is perfectly moral. It doesn't make sense.

2. does not recognize the authority of the church to define for them what is True and what isn't to do those things?

{Does he relaly veiw this as true though? what do you know of Kevins Veiws, exaclty?}-Zarove

If he's in the COC he does not recognize the authority of the church for a lot of things. He doesn't even recognize his church as a denomination. You can clear this up quite easily you know, just post a creed that the COC gives as a binding statement of their faith. I'll put on a pot of tea while I wait.

{Its not a Laundry List of hcurhces, most of the sites where to spacific chruches of christ foudn in spacific locations, but the same Orginisation.}-Zarove

They are not the same organization. They do NOT recognize themselves as a denomination with a set heirarchy, so they can't be called one organization, can they? Which of those sites you posted has the AUTHORITY to dictate to the others what they MUST BELIEVE? Answer: none. Why do you keep trying to say something is there when it isn't? It'll be nice when Kevin himself posts back, I'm sure he will tell you that he is 1. NOT a member of any denomination 2. does NOT recognize any creeds, catechisms or other "man-made" professions of faith. Why do you want to say he does?

{And the answer is "Yes". They do more htan share a common name, and most on the list where the same orginisation... just different locations. It owidl be like askign if "Saint Patrics Catholic Parish" in Nacshville had the same doctorines as " St.Mary's Churhc in Murfessburro

Nope. All catholic churches have the same bible, same catechism, same profession of faith, same heirarchy. other than the bible, what do your coc branches have in common that MUST be adhered to by all members? Not much. Belief that Jesus is God, that you must have an immersion baptism, other than that, what?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 04, 2005.


For brevity I only inluded the new comments here.

1:You first said there was NO disagreement, now you say it's moot and irrelevant. Which is it? The point is there is DISAGREEMENT over even straightforward things. You can't just say "irrelevant" to everything you don't like! "oh, they disagree over abortion? that's moot and irrelevant." bah.

I never said their where No disagrements, I said that the fundamentals of the faith are generlaly agreed to. Before trying to argue with me, try to understand my posiiton.

2:It's unbelievable that in a group of people who refuse to even call themselves a denomination because they don't accept any "man-made" creeds, catechisms, or church manuals, ANYHTING that would yield the same interpretation of the Bible that everyone would believe the same thing exactly.

Not only do Catholcis themselves not beleive int he same htign exaclty even withhte Catechism, the "same Bible", and the Pope and Magestrum, making this a spurious claim, but the level of Uniformoty in the chruc of christ is not considered here.

You asusme that each and every CHRUCH FO CHRUST TEACHES RADICLALY DIFFERENT POSIITONS, WHATEVER THE PASTOR decides, thus one may teach abortion is OK ( A topic you brign up frequently for shock vlaue) and another condemn it.

The truth is, the churhc of chirst DOES remain remarkabley cnsistant in its teachings, and houg individual members ( Such as myself) may branch off, the overall teachigns and unstrctiin remain as cohesive as the Catholci chruches teachings. i know, I grewup Churh of chrst and have visited several congregations. All where basiclaly the same in teahcings.

Simpley beleiving that a lakc of a creed of Catechism woidl lead automaticlaly to confusiona nd division is an assumption on your part, that doent take into acocunt the existing uniformity found within the sturcture of the church of christ.

If you can prove radical divergence within the Churhc of christ, that cannot be also reflected within the Cahtilic chruc ( In which many Proetss advocate Abortion, but its not the Norm) then I wl conceed. But arguing that they MUST have thousands of conflicting doctores because htey have nothign holdign hem togather based on nohtign more than presupposition is not going o get you ver yfar.

You know they all disagree because their is nothign holdin them togather therfore they must disagree. But if I show tou the Uniformity of doctorinal teahcings, you will ignroe it and insist they all teahc soemthign different.

Dispite my 20 odd years of expeurnce wihthe church of Christ and everythign you can read put put by the churhc of christ that relfects htis absolute uniformity, and even secular sorues agreeig that they are uniform, you will say they arent to support your notion of chaos.

3:I don't know why you are arguing this, I can't believe you really believe it in your heart of hearts.

Ive seen it in person. The uniformity of Teaching within the church of Christ is amazing in and of itsself precisely because peopel liek you think you NEED creeds and a central authority to maintain cohesion, which is denied by the existance of the hcurhc of chrust and proven factually erroneous.

I have no choice but to beleive it, sicne its true and Ive winessed it.It didnt matter what Churhc of chirst I went to, Graysville, Dayton, New Harmony, Vancouve, they ALL taught hte same thing.

Assumign they woidl all diverge is based on your bias, not on the manifest facts.

Can you show me the chaos and alternate teahcings between the variosu churhces of chirst? Or do you sinpmleu suppose they exist because you don think thet could manage uniformity wthohgh suhc a centralising effort?

The Uniformity of Tehcing exists. If you dotn beleive me, go to any number of churhces of christ, compare them directly.

Its what made a beleiver of the Unity out of me.

4: Are you trying to convince me of a falsehood?

No. But you onlyh beleive they all teach differing doctorines and hodl to divegent beleifs because you presuppose that, without a catechism, creed, or other such unifying insturciton, with just the Bible alone and with sola scriptura, they woidl come up with thouands upon thousands of conflicting doctorines. This is a NESSESITY to your line of thought.

The problem is, its not true. The Uniformity within the churhces of christ is itsself attested to byt Secular rleigious studies, and, dispite the lack of a central auhority,and egardless of the abscence of a single text aside formt he Bible, the churhces of christ maintain a solid ofundation of uniform teahcing.

You may say I am presentign a falehood here, but unelss you SHPOW ME wher ehtye all disagree and diverge, I think I can stand upon personal expeirnce, study, secular religiosu reports, and all available evidence, rather than fllow our lin of logic of why htye MUST diverge.

Care to show me evidence hat they do diverge?

5:I've also read COCers say that they are THE True church, in place since ad 30, which I think is a bit tough to reconcile with their branching off of presbyterianism (in 1849?), again, correct me if I'm factually wrong here.

You are wrong. They didnt Branch off of Prespetyrianism.

Rather, A Prespetyrian and a Meathodist minister renounedtheir chruches to joiun togater to orm the earliest american Fornteit Chruch that was "Christian only".

The hisotry is not that they branched off of Prespetyrianism, only that one of the earliest int eh restoration movment was a former Prespetyriuan.

This is not exaclty the same thing.

6: The Mormons believe that Christ's church ended on earth, to be re- established by Joseph Smith.

{Correct. However, theor beleifs arent what we where discussing.

then why did you bring them up?

To prove a point. One you missed.

It was not their teahcigns I souhgt ot defend, but showing you why our arumens arent convencing.

woudl tou beleive the same arguments presented frfom the mouth of a Mormon? That you sdo not use the full body of scripture, lack the Unity of the Prphet of God's guiance, and lack the Authroity of the valid Priesthood?

Your arugments presuppose Catholci primacy and thus will not work with omeonne who does not hold to Catholci Primacy.

7:

Funny you should mention this. I've got several Mormon coworkers, and their take is "it's us or it's you", but think that the protestant denominations (on protestants who refuse the title of denomination like the COC) are foundationless. Pretty funny huh?

In addition to beingunimportant, and misisng my point that tour arugments are weak and logiclaly flawed, you are also in error when you call the chruhc of chirst Protestant.

Formally, the churhc of christ is restorationist, not Protestant, and does not accept Reform theology and cannot trace its theological origins ot either Henry the 8ths movments or to Martain Luther.

Neither do they accept he ground foundation of Protestantism, such as " By Faith alone".

The churhc of chirst is a seperate movment not afifliated with Protestantism, and htis is why it does not like to call itsself a denomination. This and the implicit division to the Body of chirst denominationamisl intersupposes.

It is hihgly offensive to call the churhc of chirst a denominaiton icne its foundation was ot eliminate denominal lines. Callign it one anyway out of spite and clalign it protestant in the future form this post will be seen only as aggrivated hostility and show only your lack of will to show charity and understanding, and insead depict you as depriciating and callpus, and uncarign of the facts.

8:for the 50th time you CAN'T see it from his point of view because his point of view is that HE ALONE determines what's true and what isn't.

His veiws are that the Catholci chruch went into apostacy, and htat Protestants did not restore the churhc.

His veiws are a Pure bible teahcing eiw.

To presuppose that he will see this as flawed and argue form a vantage of sowrignty where you look down upon him with your head tilted upoward is not goign to appear to be anyhtign but arrogance.

The fac tthat you knew the Chruch of chist doesnt cll isself a denomination yet you call it one anyway , and the fac tha you insist that its protestant, even knowing it doesnt clal itself this, will further illstrat the level of hostility you dispay, which is unbecomin of a Catholic, sicne the only real putpose it serves is to elevate your own ego, and not to open dialouge.

You will not understand his arugments because you refuse to do so, instead insisting that he accept that ehs wring and bow downto yuo as an authority, this will never work.

I have Mormon friends, same as you. However, When I try to tlakot hem about my beleifs an why I disagree wihthteirs, I do not condecend toward them and tell them they are wrogn in the manner yo have with Kevin.

Such uncivility, so rampent in the world, has no place int he Body of chirst, and though I myself am not perfect, I must ask yo to refrain form your unchecked arogance.

You know me, as I post well on the Cahtolci board. im civil, and Keep poins of disagreement on a civil basis wihtout mockign the Catholcis whom I disagree with.

Ive defended here on this board the Cahtolci chruches hisotry and teachigns when it is misrepresented.

However, I likewise exgend the same coutesy to all other churhc groups. This includes the hcurhc of chirst.

You do not, instead tellign them they are a denomination, and protestant, and wrong, and insisting that they all teahc diffrent things, a fact you know is true becaue without a central creed they culdnt posisbley all teach the same thing.

You don need to ee what they teahc to know it diverges, you knwo it mut divege thereore it does.

Suhc remarkable ignorance, so wilfully maintained, is itsself appauling form soemone who claims christ as their Lord.

9:The elders of the COC are only supposed to be teachers/preachers. They have NO authority to determine the interpretaion of the Bible to their flock (correct me if I'm wrong here).

You are wrong. Teachers have full auhtority to detemrine the meanign of any givin passage.I know, I went to chuhc of chrst and the elders had this auhtority.

They where simpley not seen as Infallable.

10:These folks won't even call themselves a denomination, or admit to a fixed set of beliefs (as that would be "man made").

This is an oversimplistic an misleadign satement.

They admi to a fixed set of beleifs, BUT, they are " Silent where the Bible is silent, and speak where the Bible speaks."

Nohtign that cannot be detemrined in Scripture can be taught, and dispite your statement that sola sciptura lead ot chaos, the unifrmity of the teachigns of the churhc of chirst is autimatic dispriof of the claim of automatic doctorinal Chaos wihtout the inflalable Teahcigns of the Vahtolic chruch.

The fixed beleifs of the churhc of chist are th Bible, which acts as the Creed and constetution of the churhc body.

11:How on Earth do you expect to see it from his point of view when that point of view is different for every single member of the COC?

Its not so different, thats somethign you overlook. The Teachigns of he churhc of Christ are uniform throuou thte entire Orginisation.

Simpley claimign thy gave o fixed beelifs, and that they all teahc radiclaly different doitornes, is not proof that your acucsation is true.

And if you attend variosu churhces of hcrist you will see a uniformity that you currenty refuse to admit can even be possible.

12:How do you convince someone that the Word of God is True if they don't recognize all of the Word in the first place?

Again, this pressupposes that Kevin dosnt acceptall of th word of God.

And, like th Mormons,you asusme your extra scripture is to be taken wthout queatsion, and anyone who rejects your scruptrue must be able to reject anyhting.

The reasons for rejectign the contested books are strigner than "Martain Luther didnt liek them", and the debate far older than Luther.

As stated though the topic is muhc too invovled to engage in in this thread.

However, my point abut Mormonism shows here.

You presuppose that Kevin reects parts of the word of God. Mormons presuppoe you reject pats fo th word fo God.

The Book of Mormon is the word of God. Doctorine and Covenants of the word of God. If you are LDS, the Pearl of Great Price is the word of God.

You reject them all.

Just as Kevin rejects the 7 books held by Catholcis and not by other groups , except perhaps Oethodox.

The operative assumption is that he reejcts them, and for no good reaosn except his own authority, which is not true. The apocrupha ( Or euterocannon) is largley rejected because it is not seen as inpied by the Jews, and is Historiclaly seen as an uninpired colelctioneven by Jesephus and Philo, Jews who lived and wrote prior to Carthage.

Jerome rejected htem as well.

This rejection fothe 7 books is NOT equel to the rejection fothe word fo God base don whim.

Presupposing tou cant discuss reasonabely wth pieple these mates because they disagre wiht you on a matter thans contested by many and wose fndations are based on ligical progresion is itsself invalid.

It serves as no excuse for your impudence.

13:It's like saying in order to debate with an abortionist you must first accept that abortion is perfectly moral. It doesn't make sense.

No, its saying " DFollow their line of logic and understand where they are ocmign form". I am not askin you to reject the euterocannon Im askign you to see why its acutlaly rejected and discuss it reasonabely.

Its not thrown out because Martian luther didnt liek it, and its not rejected soley to eliminate teachigns htat where too Catholci, the reaosns are far, far more ocmpelxe than this.

And sayign Kevin can toss the Book of acts on a whim becaus ehe is his own authority is grossly misrepresentign Kevins beelifs, just liek sayign the churhc of christ has no fixed beleifs because it has no creeds and they don all teahc the same hing is not a fact proven by documeted eidence , but an assertion made by you.

Try understanding WHAT is beign argued and WHAT THE ARGUMENS ARE before launcugn into ignorant, half baked, narrow minded assessments based on personal bias.

if I debate an Abortonist, I debate base don hte weakenss of theor own logic, I do not presuspose theor argument is weak and attakc them, byut try ti see thir angle and defend my pisitionform theor.

And, to be blunt, Aborton is radiclaly different form rehection fothe picryoha, no oen dies by remoiving these 7 books form the Pages of h Bible.

So stop usign cheap shock tactics.

14:

If he's in the COC he does not recognize the authority of the church for a lot of things

This is not true.

.15. He doesn't even recognize his church as a denomination.

This is true. But at the same time, you don recognise it as not beign Protestant, so why complain?

16:You can clear this up quite easily you know, just post a creed that the COC gives as a binding statement of their faith. I'll put on a pot of tea while I wait.

The Bible is the only creed. However, your presupposition that Scripture alone will lead automatcllay to doctorinal Chaos is the flaw here. The teahcigns must be divegent because you don see hwo they can maintain uniformity wihtout a statement of faith.

So we shoudlnt bother seeing if all the hcurhces teach the same thign or not, we knwo they cant without a creed or statemen of faith, therefore, its imposisbel and its false to say otherise.

Just ignore hte man behind the curtain, he's unimportant befor the grand wizard shooting lghtning in front of you...

The fact is, the teahcigns are onsistant througkout th chuhc of chirst, dipite yor lack of beelif that this is posisble, ad as you present no real evidnec tat they all disagre and teahc differign doctrines, you have no real foot to stand on n contradicting me, othe than your suppositional logic.

17:

They are not the same organization. They do NOT recognize themselves as a denomination with a set heirarchy, so they can't be called one organization, can they?

They all teach the same thing and all have the same Head, christ, so yes. The term "Orginisation" can be applied.

And abotu denominaitonalism. Cathocis don conside themselves a denomination and so are a cult. At elast, this is one charge common Agaisnt Catholcis.

Simpely not beign a denominaitin doesnt mean anything.

Catholcis dotn consider themselves a denomination, so what?

18:Which of those sites you posted has the AUTHORITY to dictate to the others what they MUST BELIEVE?

whihc of those sites cotnradics the teachigns of the other sites?

Your claim that they all teahc differign doctirnes because they lack a cntral creed is itsself an unproven statement, and needs vlaiditon before I can answer htis queation.

So can yo put yor moneyw here your mouth is and show me the conflictin teachigns among the various churhces of Chist?

19:Answer: none. Why do you keep trying to say something is there when it isn't?

Because the uniformity of beleifs and beleivf in the elders as authoritative ( though not unfallable) teachers is recognised in the churhc of Chirst.

20:It'll be nice when Kevin himself posts back, I'm sure he will tell you that he is 1. NOT a member of any denomination 2. does NOT recognize any creeds, catechisms or other "man-made" professions of faith. Why do you want to say he does?

I never said he did. I said they contain a remarkable degree of niformity, not that they had a catechism or a man made creed, and not that they where a denomonation.

Stop saying I made claims that I did not make.

21:Nope. All catholic churches have the same bible, same catechism, same profession of faith, same heirarchy.

And the churhc of chirst has the same Bible and genral structure, which reveals absolutely nohting.

22:other than the bible, what do your coc branches have in common that MUST be adhered to by all members?

There are no "Branches", this is more presupposintion that tey all teahc conflting doctorines, a presuppositioin that lacks foundation.

An thr Bibel alone is sufficient for their uniformity.

23: Not much. Belief that Jesus is God, that you must have an immersion baptism, other than that, what?

Pkenty, but I did not enter the thread to discuss doctorinal poitns which ou will reject as universally standign in the churc of chrust because of tyor gross ignorance of the tachigns ofthe churhc of chirst... you will simpley say htat its imposisble to be uniform whtout a creed, and reject all I say.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2005.


Zarove,

Well, at least I know why you were taking his side so much, you are in the COC yourself. You could have done me the courtesy of saying so at the outset, it would have saved us both a lot of typing.

To summarize: You (in the coc) don't believe that you are a denomination. FINE. A denomination implies a fixed heirarchy and a fixed set of beliefs. Since the coc churches are NOT a denomination, they do NOT have a fixed set of beliefs or heirarchy -- what I've been saying from the get-go. Pretty simple, huh? Why are you debating this then?

Do you believe your church is Christ's church brought back to earth after a total apostasy? If so, when do you think your church arrived on earth?

Can your pastor or other person in your church definitively tell YOU what you must believe and what you mustn't?

Thank you for the correction on the CoC's roots as a fusion of presbyterian and methodist. See, I learned something new.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 04, 2005.


Zarove, Well, at least I know why you were taking his side so much, you are in the COC yourself. You could have done me the courtesy of saying so at the outset, it would have saved us both a lot of typing.

{Im not takign sides. Im doing shat I always do. I defended Catholisism agaisnt false claims as well, remeber? Or do I need to pist Links?

incenuaiton about my Bias here will not be tolerated.Considerinmg how Ive bent over backwards to be fair to everyone in the past, I wll not be discrimianted agaiant now because I do so for my own former Chruch.}-Zarove

To summarize: You (in the coc) don't believe that you are a denomination. FINE. A denomination implies a fixed heirarchy and a fixed set of beliefs. Since the coc churches are NOT a denomination, they do NOT have a fixed set of beliefs or heirarchy -- what I've been saying from the get-go. Pretty simple, huh? Why are you debating this then?

{Denominaiton does not mean that at all. Plenty of Baptoist offshoots ar e"Independant baptists" with no set heirarchy either.

Denominaiton means, by definition, a division, or type. IE, when we speak of a Denomination fo currency. A 5 dollar Bill is a seperate Denomination as a 20 Dollar Bill. It is a seperate Division.

Chruhc of christ does not count itsself as a division of any type of Chruhc, and therefore is not a denominaiton as it excludes itsself from all others.

Likewise, the Catholci chruch dosnt count itsself as a Denomination and HAS a Heirarchy.}-Zarove

Do you believe your church is Christ's church brought back to earth after a total apostasy? If so, when do you think your church arrived on earth?

{I think you miss my purpose for interjecting, similarly to hwo you misse dmy point on Mormonism.

I am not takign sides. I do not have set opinions. I base my veiws on schoalrship and tend ot keep personal eiws vested. This way no one can ccuse me of Bias.

Unfortunatley, knowign I attended Chruch of christ in my past makes you accuse me of bias, dispite the number of times I defended variosu grpups agaisnt defamation.}-Zarove

Can your pastor or other person in your church definitively tell YOU what you must believe and what you mustn't?

{You relaise that in the past Ive stated I currently attend a 4 Squate Gospel Chruch, right? You know, Amee Semple MacPhearson?

I don agree with everything Taugh at 4 Square, btu I attend regularly.}-Zarove

Thank you for the correction on the CoC's roots as a fusion of presbyterian and methodist. See, I learned something new.

{ No you didnt, now you just added ot he lie you perpetrate. its not a fusion of Meathodism and Prespeyrianism, any more htan Buddhism is a fusion of Hindu thoyght and Trappist astetics. Simpley becaus the foudner of Buddhism was a Hindu once and a Trappist once, doesnt mean that Buddhism is identified with either of those rleigions.

The porginisers of the firts restoration chruch goign simpely by "The Christain Chruhc" in the American Midwest where FORMER Prespetyriuans and FORMER meahtodists. This does not revela a tenable link between the THEOLGICAL STRUCTURE of the Churhc of chist, nor does it show a link i thought between them.

They didnt merge Meathodist thoguht with Prespetyrian thought, they rejected both.

Otherwise, we can say "The way" the hcurhc of our very own elpidio, is a merger of Catholisism and Protestantism, dispite its clear oriional origin!}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2005.


From Wiekipidea, a Neutral source.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2005.

sORRY, FORGOT THE LINK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2005.


Testign to see ifthis works...

[a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ " target="new"]Fender Guitars [/a]

Now lets see...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2005.


OK, it didnt work...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2005.

Zarove

The reason I used the brackets [ ] was so that the code could be seen on screen without actually making an active link. You must replace the brackets with < and > in order to make the link work.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.


incenuaiton about my Bias here will not be tolerated.Considerinmg how Ive bent over backwards to be fair to everyone in the past, I wll not be discrimianted agaiant now because I do so for my own former Chruch.}-Zarove

Why is this your former church? Does your current church have exactly the same doctrine as the coc? If not, you are in a way proving my larger point that what you all consider the Word is really just your own "man-made" interpretation of it. If not, there would be no point in changing churches.

Denominaiton means, by definition, a division, or type. IE, when we speak of a Denomination fo currency. A 5 dollar Bill is a seperate Denomination as a 20 Dollar Bill. It is a seperate Division.

Here's a web definition of denomination:

"a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith "

If you want to argue about that, you can, but I think it's reasonable to say that the *doctrines* of a denomination are the *same* across all their churches whereas NONdenonminal churches all have (or can have) different doctrines.

Chruhc of christ does not count itsself as a division of any type of Chruhc, and therefore is not a denominaiton as it excludes itsself from all others

Exactly, there are no fixed doctrines from church to church. That's what I've maintained all along.

Likewise, the Catholci chruch dosnt count itsself as a Denomination and HAS a Heirarchy.}-Zarove

Denomination applies to churches that have moved off the parent church, since the Catholic church IS the parent, it has both fixed beliefs and a heirarchy, but is by your definition obviously NOT a "denomination". Conversely, since as you say the COC was started by a Presbyterian and a Methodist (two denominations) they may not consider themselves a denomination, and may not be one, but they are definetely NOT the root church of Christianity, as they were started by people in denominations.

Do you believe your church is Christ's church brought back to earth after a total apostasy? If so, when do you think your church arrived on earth?

{I think you miss my purpose for interjecting, similarly to hwo you misse dmy point on Mormonism.

I am not takign sides. I do not have set opinions. I base my veiws on schoalrship and tend ot keep personal eiws vested. This way no one can ccuse me of Bias.

Unfortunatley, knowign I attended Chruch of christ in my past makes you accuse me of bias, dispite the number of times I defended variosu grpups agaisnt defamation.}-Zarove

You said you were in the COC, I was asking for your opinion on some of what I'd heard their beliefs are. That isn't accusing you of bias. You obviously don't believe it thoush if you've left their church. Personally, I think less of your opinions if you'll never reveal what you believe, but only do this as some sort of officating game. How do you expect to find out if you are believing the Truth or not if you refuse to put your own beliefs out there for criticism? How will you know if they hold up or not?

{You relaise that in the past Ive stated I currently attend a 4 Squate Gospel Chruch, right? You know, Amee Semple MacPhearson?

I don agree with everything Taugh at 4 Square, btu I attend regularly.}-Zarove

No, I didn't know this, I thought you were a member of the COC as you said above. I don't know what the four-square churches teach, although I've heard the name, so I can't say much about them.

{ No you didnt, now you just added ot he lie you perpetrate.

Saying I was LYING is a sin against charity on your part. That is what I thought you were saying, I was not attempting to deliberately mislead anyone. Therefore I was in error, but not lying. You get more flies with honey than vinegar zarove, you should try and educate people first and not accuse them of malice until you know for sure that is the case. Now that I know the score, I'll say that "the coc was founded by a Methodist and a Presbyterian, but does not follow the doctrines of either", is that good enough for you?

Otherwise, we can say "The way" the hcurhc of our very own elpidio, is a merger of Catholisism and Protestantism, dispite its clear oriional origin!}-Zarove

No, you could call the Catholic faith "the way" too if you wanted, as some of the early Christians refered to themselves that way, and the Catholic faith is a continuation of that. I don't know what Elpidio believes or how his church refers to themselves.

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 05, 2005.


incenuaiton about my Bias here will not be tolerated.Considerinmg how Ive bent over backwards to be fair to everyone in the past, I wll not be discrimianted agaiant now because I do so for my own former Chruch.}-Zarove Why is this your former church? Does your current church have exactly the same doctrine as the coc? If not, you are in a way proving my larger point that what you all consider the Word is really just your own "man-made" interpretation of it. If not, there would be no point in changing churches.

I left for personal, not theological, reasons, reaons that are not relevant to the duscussion of facts.

Denominaiton means, by definition, a division, or type. IE, when we speak of a Denomination fo currency. A 5 dollar Bill is a seperate Denomination as a 20 Dollar Bill. It is a seperate Division. Here's a web definition of denomination: "a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith " If you want to argue about that, you can, but I think it's reasonable to say that the *doctrines* of a denomination are the *same* across all their churches whereas NONdenonminal churches all have (or can have) different doctrines.

This is not only grossly innacurate and ovelry simplistc, but greatly a dispay f your ongoign refusal to listen to any veiw ut your own.

The hcurhc of chrust has remarkabley conssitant teachigns wihtin its orginisation, this it maintains without a creed or catechism or statement fo faith expected ot be ascented to. You may beleive htis is imposisble to maintain, but it is the reality. Dispite your statement that the autonomous nature of the hcuhx of christ must inevidabely elad to a variety of Doctirnes and no set beelifs, the relaity is that th chuhc of chrust has set beleifs and standards, all wihtout the creeds you think are so nessisary.

For once, stop tryign to use the ligical conclusions based ony uor biuas and look at the facts.

That said, its odd since the Catholci chruch, by yout definiiton, is a denomination, yet later you try to say its not.

we'll get ot that in a momnet.

Bowever, a standard dictgionary defines a denominaiton as 1: A disision wihtin a greater body. 2: A measure or unit.3: a body that is part of an overall classification, but seperate in sturctute to others of the same distinction lable. IE, Protestant denominatioins.

Chruhc of christ does not count itsself as a division of any type of Chruhc, and therefore is not a denominaiton as it excludes itsself from all others Exactly, there are no fixed doctrines from church to church. That's what I've maintained all along.

And your wrong. Simpely not being a part of Protestantism and not beign a part of any recognised movement but beign self contained dos NOT mean that it lacks ficed beelifs. The beleifs are fxed enough to do encyclopidia articles on the standard beelifs held by the Churhc of chust.

You may claim till your ble in the face that each Chruch of chirst will teahc radilaly difernt doctori s becaus without the central authority, creds, catechism, and statemen sof faiht, they woidl invarielay be lead to a vairety of man made opinions and conflicts withn themselves.

Dispite the fact that this doesnt relect the reality, its what must be true because its th eonly thing you think is poisbsle.

OK, then explain why standard beeifs and practices ARE capabl of beign quantified in sandard artcles, why all Chruches of chirst pretty well maintain the same teacings, and why they are capable of all agreeign on the overall doctoirnes if tis so imposisble?

Or will you maintian tha they must all confluct, and thus cannot have this sort of cohesion, dispite th eobvious fac tthat they do?

Your arguing form your own percpetion, not the reality.You refuse to see whats rellay their and try to dictate what is and is not true, and htat dosnt work.

Likewise, the Catholci chruch dosnt count itsself as a Denomination and HAS a Heirarchy.}-Zarove Denomination applies to churches that have moved off the parent church, since the Catholic church IS the parent, it has both fixed beliefs and a heirarchy, but is by your definition obviously NOT a "denomination".

But you basiclaly said my definition was wrong! accordign to YOUR definition, it IS.

So, either of these two optiosn ar enow open.

1; If you insist on callign the churhc of Chirst a denominatiin, dispite tis claism that tis not, based on yuor definition fo what a Denominaiton is, you must accept that the Catholic Chruch is a denomination.

2: If you reject the notion that the Cahtolci Chruch is a denomination, and subsequently the definition you gave for hat a denomination is, then you must aslso be willign to accpet other Non- denominational Chruches exist that are not a aprt of an overall movemnt called "Protestant". The churhc of Christ is not Protestant and rejects the reformed theology. Its an independant, restorationist group, not a division of another movement, but oen that stnds alone.

As a rsult, tis not a denominaion, int he same ein tha the Cahtolci chruch isnt. Unless you want to insist that it is base don yuor definition, in which case I shoudl start clalign it "The rman Catolic Denomination" and see how far that goes.

Conversely, since as you say the COC was started by a Presbyterian and a Methodist (two denominations) they may not consider themselves a denomination, and may not be one, but they are definetely NOT the root church of Christianity, as they were started by people in denominations.

Except I didnt say this! you just misrepresented my words! thus you LIED! I said the first General American frinteir Chruch to clal itsself simpley "A Christain Chruch" was orginised by a former Prespetyrian and a former Meathodist. The operative word there is former . As in " No longer Meathodist and no longer Prespetyrian."

I likewis said "Ortiginised the first church on the american western forntier to be known simply as "A Christain chruch", not "The origionatores of the movment."

By distorting what I said and refusign to actually see what Im saying, and inssitng on filteing my arguments from your predjudice, yo have distorted and misrepresented my arugment.

This is what you call being Honest?

Do you believe your church is Christ's church brought back to earth after a total apostasy? If so, when do you think your church arrived on earth? {I think you miss my purpose for interjecting, similarly to hwo you misse dmy point on Mormonism. I am not takign sides. I do not have set opinions. I base my veiws on schoalrship and tend ot keep personal eiws vested. This way no one can ccuse me of Bias. Unfortunatley, knowign I attended Chruch of christ in my past makes you accuse me of bias, dispite the number of times I defended variosu grpups agaisnt defamation.}-Zarove You said you were in the COC, I was asking for your opinion on some of what I'd heard their beliefs are.

Read the wiekipedia article, and get better aquainted. rather than just assuming they all habe conflicting teahcigns becaus eheir is no wa unity can be maintiend whout a creed, try READING UP on what is ACUTLALY HAPPENING whin the churhc of hirst bcfore tryign to critisse it. That said, try actually understandign the arguments prsented befoe you, rather than radign them through a flter.

That isn't accusing you of bias.

It is when you say " I see why you take his side now, your on of them". which is especially irtful after the several tiems I defended Catholsiism form false accudsations.

You obviously don't believe it thoush if you've left their church.

Not on.ly does my beleif or disbeleif in the hcurhc of chists claims not change the reality of what the Churhc of Chist is, and my obligation to fairly represent what they beleive and whow they practice and whay their origins are, but my reaosn for leavign wherent even theoloical.

Try learnign what happened to me to caus eme to change hcurhces, rathe rhtan asusming "Protestant style chruch shopping".

That sort of presumption is dangerous in and of itsself, and works again fromt yor preset bias.

Personally, I think less of your opinions if you'll never reveal what you believe, but only do this as some sort of officating game.

I reveal what I need to reveal. However, i find no need to reveal anyhtign of my personal beleifs on his thread, sicne its about ho ou eant to rip to shreds somoen elses beelifs.

How do you expect to find out if you are believing the Truth or not if you refuse to put your own beliefs out there for criticism? How will you know if they hold up or not?

I do presnt my beelifs for examination, I simpely do not do so every time I speak. In this case, Im on this thread to prevent your less han Honest representaton of anoters beleifs.

You arent even eaminign wht yo beleived, instad you want to bully Kevin into acceptign yor ews.

Cahtolisism isn th turht, so dont bothe listenignto critisism of catholsiism, its just anti-Cahtolci nonsence, and lets nto consider what others beelive, thir just wrong, so its OK to rip them to shreds!

relaly, you think no one can crtisiise fairly the one true Holy Apostolic Cahtolci Churc, but you can fairly critisise the cuhc of chirst, which, to yo, wa foudned by a merger of Meahtodism an Presprytianism ,a dn was forund dby a meahtodist and prespertyian.

You swon accpet correction, you distort sttaemnts placed before yu, tou refuse tolook at data, and inssisnt your veis ar igh with no evidnece.

This makesz you LESS capable of beign tusted to deseminate truth.

My veiws in this duscussion are not rleevant to my involvement, which is to prefent false infomaiton and defmamation and to bing open idalouge. you arne tintereste din open dialouge htough, you just wan to prove Cahtolsiism ight and everyhtign else flase an fraudulent, and thus refuse to accep he facts.

{You relaise that in the past Ive stated I currently attend a 4 Squate Gospel Chruch, right? You know, Amee Semple MacPhearson? I don agree with everything Taugh at 4 Square, btu I attend regularly.}-Zarove No, I didn't know this, I thought you were a member of the COC as you said above. I don't know what the four-square churches teach, although I've heard the name, so I can't say much about them.

Ive made mention that I WAS a part of the Churhc of christ, not am a current attendant, thohgh int he past on both this an the Cahtolc corum i have sated this infrmaion, is a mate of public record, and, likewise, you paricipated in thrads wherethis as discussed.

{ No you didnt, now you just added ot he lie you perpetrate. Saying I was LYING is a sin against charity on your part.

No, its not. I said you perpetuated a lie, not that you sacificlaly lied. Hoever, your obstenance is obvious to any objective observer, your refusal to check the facts and insistance that you are right sdispie the clear correction given to you will prive that you are less than hienst in your approach.

That is what I thought you were saying, I was not attempting to deliberately mislead anyone. Therefore I was in error, but not lying.

I said "Perpetuatin g the lie" not "Diliberarly lying", for a Catholci, you sufrley dont notice the quLIFEIRS IN SENTENCES WELL...

You get more flies with honey than vinegar zarove, you should try and educate people first and not accuse them of malice until you know for sure that is the case.

I beleive this is my tradiitonal mean. However, my attempts at educatign you have faled because you refuse o look at the facts.

Such as when yo said hat the churhc of chrust was a branch of Prespyrytianism, and them, whn I corrected yoyu, yo said a merger of Prespetyrianism and Meatosism. I clealry said it was not this, and was a seperate mvoement, but you, in your stubbirn refusal to examine fairly the events that lead to the current situaiton, insisnt that is a protestant denomination founded upon Mdeatodism and Prespetyrianism.

Such folly revelas how you wll only modifty but not change yor paradigm. You wil not listen o othes eiws or the facts at hand, and htis is not th only example. Such as whn yo insist that eahc Chruhc of hcirst teahces differign doctoriens, because they cant all be in unity one wih another, becaus hy lack a creed. you use a logical chain to deduce this, but ignore the evidence agaisn our claim.

If I go to a new chuhc of hcist in a new state, ti ill teach the same higns as the oens here teach.

The unity is there, dispite your attmeot to use logic to deny it.

This proves you runwillignnes o listen.

Now that I know the score, I'll say that "the coc was founded by a Methodist and a Presbyterian, but does not follow the doctrines of either", is that good enough for you?

No, since its a lie. it was Orginised on the american mdwest by a former Prespetyrian and Meatodist. ( Not e the term "Former)

Byt the movements hisotry is far too compelxe to sat " Foudned by" them, and, as noted, theyw hre not Meathosdists or Prespetyruians at the time of this hcuhes orginisation. Sayign otheiwse is false.

Otherwise, we can say "The way" the hcurhc of our very own elpidio, is a merger of Catholisism and Protestantism, dispite its clear oriional origin!}-Zarove No, you could call the Catholic faith "the way" too if you wanted, as some of the early Christians refered to themselves that way, and the Catholic faith is a continuation of that. I don't know what Elpidio believes or how his church refers to themselves.

And once again, you miss my point...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 05, 2005.


Zarove,

I left for personal, not theological, reasons, reaons that are not relevant to the duscussion of facts

That's fine by me, but why wouldn't you go to another COC church? Or wasn't there one in your area (BTW, if this is too personal, you don't have to answer), to be honest I don't care.

The hcurhc of chrust has remarkabley conssitant teachigns wihtin its orginisation, this it maintains without a creed or catechism or statement fo faith expected ot be ascented to.

Zarove, YOU are making a false assumption here, I never said that every coc church MUST have radically different views, after all, there are only so many views one can ascribe to and still recognize Jesus as God, but that there is NO universally mandated view. They may be quite similar, they may not. Similar is not *the same*. When dealing with the Word of God, I'd think you'd care if 2+2 equalled EXACTLY 4, and not 4.1 at one place and 3.9 at someplace else. What you may be misunderstanding is that for me ANY incorrect belief is a MASSIVE mistake. If differences (read ERRORS on someone's part) in interpretting the Word isn't important to you, that's your business.

The beleifs are fxed enough to do encyclopidia articles on the standard beelifs held by the Churhc of chust.

The trouble is though that anyone in the coc can disagree with what the encyclopedia article says about them, and be perfectly correct in doing so, right? You might be able to summarize *in general* what they believe, but not in any kind of a binding sense.

1; If you insist on callign the churhc of Chirst a denominatiin, dispite tis claism that tis not, based on yuor definition fo what a Denominaiton is, you must accept that the Catholic Chruch is a denomination.

2: If you reject the notion that the Cahtolci Chruch is a denomination, and subsequently the definition you gave for hat a denomination is, then you must aslso be willign to accpet other Non- denominational Chruches exist that are not a aprt of an overall movemnt called "Protestant". The churhc of Christ is not Protestant and rejects the reformed theology. Its an independant, restorationist group, not a division of another movement, but oen that stnds alone.

I don't care whether or not the coc calls themselves a denomination, if you want to say that the coc has left the beaten path so far that they aren't even remotely close to any prior church and so can't be affiliated with them - fine.

Conversely, since as you say the COC was started by a Presbyterian and a Methodist (two denominations) they may not consider themselves a denomination, and may not be one, but they are definetely NOT the root church of Christianity, as they were started by people in denominations.

Except I didnt say this! you just misrepresented my words! thus you LIED!

What the H@ll are you talking about? I'm drawing a valid conclusion from what you said. How one earth do you call that a lie? Look at it logically:

Given: Methodists are a denomination

Given: Presbyterians are a denomination

Given: neither presbyterians nor methodists claim to have existed from the time of Christ

Given: that YOU SAID People who used to be methodists and presbyterians formed the COC

THEREfore: the COC has NOT existed since the time of Christ. HOW can you say this is a lie? Logic 1A slim, take it sometime.

sicne its about ho ou eant to rip to shreds somoen elses beelifs.

We haven't been discussing an individual's beliefs at all, but rather the non or potentially nonuniformity of coc beliefs so this is moot and irrelevant.

You arent even eaminign wht yo beleived, instad you want to bully Kevin into acceptign yor ews

In case you haven't noticed, Kevin hasn't been on this thread for days. You are projecting your own anxiety onto Kevin, who isn't even here.

relaly, you think no one can crtisiise fairly the one true Holy Apostolic Cahtolci Churc, but you can fairly critisise the cuhc of chirst, which, to yo, wa foudned by a merger of Meahtodism an Presprytianism ,a dn was forund dby a meahtodist and prespertyian

You can criticize the Catholic church all you want, I'm not stopping you. Plenty of people do it every day. I've already TOLD you that I misinterpretted your statement on methodist/presbyterian on the coc origin, but I guess I'll do it agian. As I currently understand it, and assuming you don't say somethig totally different in the next post, the coc was founded by a former presbyterian and a former methodist who in their new church adhered to the doctrines of neither. Good enough?

Sheesh, I've tried to correct this more times that I'd believe possible, and that is necessary since YOU weren't clear on the church's origins in your first post, but keep making piecemeal additions that I have to try and keep up with. If anything you should be thanking me for my patience.

Ive made mention that I WAS a part of the Churhc of christ, not am a current attendant, thohgh int he past on both this an the Cahtolc corum i have sated this infrmaion, is a mate of public record, and, likewise, you paricipated in thrads wherethis as discussed.

If you can show me a thread where I've said, "Hey zarove, I see you've changed from the coc to the foursquare church" I'll donate $20.oo to the charity of your choice. If you think that by merely posting this information on some thread that I may or may not have read that somehow I should KNOW all about you and your changes in churches, you are either very naive or arrogant or both.

Saying I was LYING is a sin against charity on your part.

No, its not. I said you perpetuated a lie, not that you sacificlaly lied.

You missed the point again. The point is it isn't a LIE at all, but an ERROR. Saying I was "perpetuating an error" would have been accurate, your statement was not.

I said "Perpetuatin g the lie" not "Diliberarly lying", for a Catholci, you sufrley dont notice the quLIFEIRS IN SENTENCES WELL...

Once again, YOU are guilty of what you accuse me of, since this was not a LIE, but an error.

Such as when yo said hat the churhc of chrust was a branch of Prespyrytianism, and them, whn I corrected yoyu, yo said a merger of Prespetyrianism and Meatosism.

Well maybe you should have figured out then that I was unclear WHAT you were saying, rather than assume I was lying.

Now that I know the score, I'll say that "the coc was founded by a Methodist and a Presbyterian, but does not follow the doctrines of either", is that good enough for you?

No, since its a lie. it was Orginised on the american mdwest by a former Prespetyrian and Meatodist. ( Not e the term "Former

You've got some really basic learning to do yourself. It is NOT a lie, which implies intent, but an error. Several times you have accused me of lying when I wasn't. You really owe me an apology.

Otherwise, we can say "The way" the hcurhc of our very own elpidio, is a merger of Catholisism and Protestantism, dispite its clear oriional origin!}-Zarove No, you could call the Catholic faith "the way" too if you wanted, as some of the early Christians refered to themselves that way, and the Catholic faith is a continuation of that. I don't know what Elpidio believes or how his church refers to themselves.

And once again, you miss my point...

You don't have a point. No official merger of the Catholic Church occured with any Protestant church to form an organization called "the way". Therefore, you have no point. Therefore you are either in error, or as you would put it "lying".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 05, 2005.


"In case you haven't noticed, Kevin hasn't been on this thread for days."

I have been here, just have made a decision not to post...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 05, 2005.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Zarove, I left for personal, not theological, reasons, reaons that are not relevant to the duscussion of facts

That's fine by me, but why wouldn't you go to another COC church? Or wasn't there one in your area (BTW, if this is too personal, you don't have to answer), to be honest I don't care.

{As I said, personal reaosns, not related to this discussion.}-Zarove

The hcurhc of chrust has remarkabley conssitant teachigns wihtin its orginisation, this it maintains without a creed or catechism or statement fo faith expected ot be ascented to.

Zarove, YOU are making a false assumption here, I never said that every coc church MUST have radically different views, after all, there are only so many views one can ascribe to and still recognize Jesus as God, but that there is NO universally mandated view. They may be quite similar, they may not. Similar is not *the same*. When dealing with the Word of God, I'd think you'd care if 2+2 equalled EXACTLY 4, and not 4.1 at one place and 3.9 at someplace else. What you may be misunderstanding is that for me ANY incorrect belief is a MASSIVE mistake. If differences (read ERRORS on someone's part) in interpretting the Word isn't important to you, that's your business.

{ecept in practice they DONT have differign doctoriens and ascent to these things i generally approved. Thos ehwo DONT ascent to these eiws are generlaly like Cahtolci Prietss who disagree wihhe current Castholic Teahcings...}-Zarove

The beleifs are fxed enough to do encyclopidia articles on the standard beelifs held by the Churhc of chust.

The trouble is though that anyone in the coc can disagree with what the encyclopedia article says about them, and be perfectly correct in doing so, right?

{No, and hte issue is far, far more compelxe than your makign it.}- Zarove

You might be able to summarize *in general* what they believe, but not in any kind of a binding sense.

{except in my past exprience and every critical reveiw iVE ONE SENCE, THIS IS THE GENRAL TAKE, AND ALL OTHER CRITICAL REVIES AGREE WITH ME. Ascent to these basic belifs is what is found in the bulk of the chruc of Christ.}-Zarove

1; If you insist on callign the churhc of Chirst a denominatiin, dispite tis claism that tis not, based on yuor definition fo what a Denominaiton is, you must accept that the Catholic Chruch is a denomination.

2: If you reject the notion that the Cahtolci Chruch is a denomination, and subsequently the definition you gave for hat a denomination is, then you must aslso be willign to accpet other Non- denominational Chruches exist that are not a aprt of an overall movemnt called "Protestant". The churhc of Christ is not Protestant and rejects the reformed theology. Its an independant, restorationist group, not a division of another movement, but oen that stnds alone.

I don't care whether or not the coc calls themselves a denomination, if you want to say that the coc has left the beaten path so far that they aren't even remotely close to any prior church and so can't be affiliated with them - fine.

{All it means is that they chose not to be part of any one movement and be a fragment of an overal label,a nd prefer ot be "Christians only". Not that all the teahcigns are 100% unhead of.}-Zarove

Conversely, since as you say the COC was started by a Presbyterian and a Methodist (two denominations) they may not consider themselves a denomination, and may not be one, but they are definetely NOT the root church of Christianity, as they were started by people in denominations.

Except I didnt say this! you just misrepresented my words! thus you LIED!

What the H@ll are you talking about? I'm drawing a valid conclusion from what you said. How one earth do you call that a lie? Look at it logically:

Given: Methodists are a denomination

{True}-Zarove

Given: Presbyterians are a denomination

{True}-Zarove

Given: neither presbyterians nor methodists claim to have existed from the time of Christ

{True}-Zarove

Given: that YOU SAID People who used to be methodists and presbyterians formed the COC

{False. I said the earliest recorded chruch orginised on the American fronteir was formed as a congregation by former members of the Meatodist and Prespetyruan chuehc. it is your falsity that says they where prespetyrians and meathodists. it is this that is in error, as well as sayg they foudned the Chruch of Chirst. The issue is much mor detailed than this.}-Zarove

THEREfore: the COC has NOT existed since the time of Christ. HOW can you say this is a lie? Logic 1A slim, take it sometime.

{1: I didnt say it did exist sicne he tiem of HCirst, its not my job to tell who is and is not right.

2: Your veiw of the events are flawed. orm you statig it was founed by a Meatodist and presPetyrian, when indeed it was only one congregation that was orginised, and htey indeed where FORMER members of those respective denomonaitons, and not members at the time.

This fact alne must be accepted by you before I can give a general acocurning of the hisotry that si vlaid. so long as yo insist upon veiwing it throuh your own filter and repeatign false information, I cannot progress in dialuge wiht you.}-Zarove

sicne its about ho ou eant to rip to shreds somoen elses beelifs.

We haven't been discussing an individual's beliefs at all, but rather the non or potentially nonuniformity of coc beliefs so this is moot and irrelevant.

{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? Othe htna by " Argument of nessisity" by siting they do have a cntral creed and herefore will invariabely teah differen htings, do you have actal, empirical evidnce of this?}-Zarove

You arent even eaminign wht yo beleived, instad you want to bully Kevin into acceptign yor ews

In case you haven't noticed, Kevin hasn't been on this thread for days. You are projecting your own anxiety onto Kevin, who isn't even here.

{I began the thrad to clarify points, and the thread was initially directed at Kevin.}-Zarove

relaly, you think no one can crtisiise fairly the one true Holy Apostolic Cahtolci Churc, but you can fairly critisise the cuhc of chirst, which, to yo, wa foudned by a merger of Meahtodism an Presprytianism ,a dn was forund dby a meahtodist and prespertyian

You can criticize the Catholic church all you want, I'm not stopping you. Plenty of people do it every day. I've already TOLD you that I misinterpretted your statement on methodist/presbyterian on the coc origin, but I guess I'll do it agian. As I currently understand it, and assuming you don't say somethig totally different in the next post, the coc was founded by a former presbyterian and a former methodist who in their new church adhered to the doctrines of neither. Good enough?

{Correct. But this is not ehat you said eithe rin the last post, or above.}-Zarove

Sheesh, I've tried to correct this more times that I'd believe possible, and that is necessary since YOU weren't clear on the church's origins in your first post, but keep making piecemeal additions that I have to try and keep up with. If anything you should be thanking me for my patience.

{I did link an encyclopidia article...you didnt NEED me to explain in deapth...}-Zarove

Ive made mention that I WAS a part of the Churhc of christ, not am a current attendant, thohgh int he past on both this an the Cahtolc corum i have sated this infrmaion, is a mate of public record, and, likewise, you paricipated in thrads wherethis as discussed.

If you can show me a thread where I've said, "Hey zarove, I see you've changed from the coc to the foursquare church" I'll donate $20.oo to the charity of your choice. If you think that by merely posting this information on some thread that I may or may not have read that somehow I should KNOW all about you and your changes in churches, you are either very naive or arrogant or both.

{I said you poste din the same threads where made thisknown, no that toy direcltry respiened to my proffesions...}-Zarove

Saying I was LYING is a sin against charity on your part.

No, its not. I said you perpetuated a lie, not that you sacificlaly lied.

You missed the point again. The point is it isn't a LIE at all, but an ERROR. Saying I was "perpetuating an error" would have been accurate, your statement was not.

{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

I said "Perpetuatin g the lie" not "Diliberarly lying", for a Catholci, you sufrley dont notice the quLIFEIRS IN SENTENCES WELL...

Once again, YOU are guilty of what you accuse me of, since this was not a LIE, but an error.

{See above.}-Zarove

Such as when yo said hat the churhc of chrust was a branch of Prespyrytianism, and them, whn I corrected yoyu, yo said a merger of Prespetyrianism and Meatosism.

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

Now that I know the score, I'll say that "the coc was founded by a Methodist and a Presbyterian, but does not follow the doctrines of either", is that good enough for you?

{No,sicne its alo false. They wheren prespetyrian and meathodists at the time...and the foundation isue is muh moe difficult to get into.}- Zarove

No, since its a lie. it was Orginised on the american mdwest by a former Prespetyrian and Meatodist. ( Not e the term "Former

You've got some really basic learning to do yourself. It is NOT a lie, which implies intent, but an error. Several times you have accused me of lying when I wasn't. You really owe me an apology.

{I owe nothing.}-Zarove

Otherwise, we can say "The way" the hcurhc of our very own elpidio, is a merger of Catholisism and Protestantism, dispite its clear oriional origin!}-Zarove No, you could call the Catholic faith "the way" too if you wanted, as some of the early Christians refered to themselves that way, and the Catholic faith is a continuation of that. I don't know what Elpidio believes or how his church refers to themselves.

And once again, you miss my point...

You don't have a point. No official merger of the Catholic Church occured with any Protestant church to form an organization called "the way".

{And no oficial merger happened with Prespetyrian and meahtodists called "The hcurhc of christ".}-Zarove

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

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 05, 2005.


Zarove,

You wrote, "An error can be called a lie. its a mannerism of my speach. Irony is Kevin mdethe same mistake"

You are correct, and I never did apologize to you for this mistake... Please accept my apology for the way that I came across to you in the one thread where we were debating whether or not animals would go to heaven... You are correct and I was wrong, the Bible nowhere mentions this one way or the other... :-)

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 05, 2005.


es well, apology accpted.

Now, as for this thread, I do with Kevin woidl be mor considerate withhe facts.I wager if I ever ame to see you in person, Kevin, and we wnt touyour Cruch, the same teachigns woudl be taught as in my former congregation.

It hasbeen my expeirnce, woudl you agree?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 05, 2005.


TO EXPLAIN A BIT.

By no means is this conciece.

Howeer, there are three general theories for the origin of th Chruc of Christ used by membrs of the Chruhc of Christ.

1: inependant Cheuhces emerged from Circa 33 AD to the rpeasent, but no real rcords survuved, espeiclaly in the period of persecution in the middle ages when suhc typesfo Chruhc woidl be deemed Heretical by other powwrs seekign conorle of Christs Chruch, noentheless, there where always soem members of "Christs true Chruch".

2: The true Chruch was suprpressed and slept, but never ceased. Men beleived in the Bible, and the teachigns of Christ, but had no central Cruch to belong to that was the same, andthe other churhces developed man-made creeds to follow. This means other Churhces have Christaisn in them, but the other Chruches arent properly run, and are thus apostate. tos other Chruches also contaon sinners who are unrepentant and not part of Christ body. In this vww, the chruhc of Christ merley restored the origional style of Chruc gvernance.

Hence the name "restorationists".

3: The CHurhc fell into aposcacy, and was lost frm the earht, till such time as men rebuilt it in the 19th Cengury.

The arguments for all three can be far more ocmpelling, however, the basic idea of restoratin of the principles of christ and building a Xhurhc in lone with this can be traced back to at leats the thrid century. Groupds ranging from the Frensh Valcouis tothe Lollards in england in the 1300's maintianed similar notions.

So the origi of the "Chruch fo Christ" cannot be seen as members of Prespytirian Chruch and Meahtodism getign togathe and foundign a new Chruhc, sicne ghe basic idea preceeded them by millinia.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 05, 2005.


Zarove,

You wrote, "I wager if I ever ame to see you in person, Kevin, and we wnt touyour Cruch, the same teachigns woudl be taught as in my former congregation. It hasbeen my expeirnce, woudl you agree?"

Yes, that is correct...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 05, 2005.


Zarove,

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? 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! 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.

"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.

{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. 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.

{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. 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? 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?

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.

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.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 05, 2005.


+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 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.


Let see if this works

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


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.


Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

For some reason, a NEW thread has been made on this topic continuing < href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Ckf0"> Here.

Frank

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


Moderation questions? read the FAQ