Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by partial plate

Oh well. I guess like the poor, the apologists will always be with us. And their apologetics. Thanks for the rundown on Aramaic. Only 27 more points to go...

Now you understand the problem with trying to refute Turkel. Assertions are easy. Refutations take time.

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

Of course you are. You're a member of an offshoot of an offshoot of the Presbyterian denomination that resulted from the disillusionment of Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell in the early 1800s. There was no distinct "Church of Christ" as you know it until ~1910. While you may insist that it doesn't matter what the modern founders of the COC believed before they "went back to the Bible" and established/restored "First Century Christianity"--I'm not sure which you claim, but both of them sound silly--you cannot claim to be part of an unbroken chain of "1st C Christians" without the obviously-jumping-through-hoops appeal to a "Church in the Wilderness."

In short, the COC is a subdenomination of Presbyterianism.

d

PS: Interestingly, having been raised in the COC myself and sheltered as you have from all opposing viewpoints and fed exactly what they wanted me to believe, etc, no one ever mentioned the Barton-Stone movement. Ever. Some CsOC admit to the movement, at least, but still tout the party line of "1st C. Christianity." Most CsOC, though, don't even admit to their own history. I think many don't even know it. If they're really who they say they are and have the evidence and God on their side, why O why would they try to shield their people from the facts?

As a rule, I do not trust anyone who tries to hide the evidence and very real arguments against his position, as this is evidence only that he does not want me to make a fully-informed, mature decision. The COC thrives on carefully withheld information and ingrained wilful ignorance. You yourself have provided copious evidence not only of your certain--predictable--areas of personal ignorance and insistence upon maintaining them, but also of your reticence to address weak arguments in your own position.

In response to your oft-repeated assertion that the Bible is divine/true/inerrant and admission that you begin with this assumption, you have not, to my knowledge, yet addressed the very relevant question of whether you read the Koran the same way. The first time or two someone made this point, I could believe you simply overlooked it. However, the question keeps popping up. Now, I've come to assume that you are pointedly avoiding it. The only reason I can imagine that you would avoid this question is because you know deep down that we have you and you've too much pride and investment in your belief to honestly answer it. In other words, you do not address it out of sheer intellectual dishonesty.

Please prove me wrong.

Diana,
You do not want to be proved wrong. If proven wrong, I doubt you'll admit it. There'll always be a way out where you can charge me, or those like me, with trying to hide, deceive, or the like. You have made a choice you do not intend to change.

But just for your information, seeing as how you evidently have zero knowledge of the restoration movement or its history in Europe (dating to the 1500's at least) and in America (dating to the 1790's at least), the fact is that churches of Christ (faithful Christians following God as God directs) have been around ever since A.D. 29 (Acts 2).

You said, "There was no distinct "Church of Christ" as you know it until ~1910. " In my files I have a picture and description of the Old Philadelphia church of Christ. It is in eastern TN, and dates, as I recall, back to the late 1700's. Prior to Thomas Campbell, prior to his son Alexander, and prior to Stone. The churches of Christ have always existed since Pentecost.

If you go back to the reformation era you will find men like the Haldane brothers, and others, who already were (in Europe, Scotland, etc) suggesting men leave behind creeds and go back to the Bible as the only guide to faith.

I suggest reading the four volumes of Earl West, 'In Search of the Ancient Order.' I also suggest reading whatever else you can find of the works of the men in the 1800's.

The church of Christ did not originate with Stone or Campbell. The Catholic church, and every denomination, by their own records can point to the man who started them. Every last one of them is started hundreds of years too late to be the church spoken of in the Bible.

In addition, no church has to be able to trace their roots back to Acts 2. Some have tried, and have failed (i.e. Baptists, by their champion debater Ben Bogard). The fact is that the seed of the kingdom is the Word of God (Luke 8:11) and even if that seed is planted 2000 years later than when it was given the fact is it will still grow and produce after its own kind.

While the Campbell's, and Stone, were presbyterian, the entire purpose of their work in life was to either get that group corrected (back to the Bible, leaving behind all creeds of man) or leave. They could not get the former to take, so they left. They wanted nothing to do with Calvin's five doctrines.

The fact that most NT Christians do not know of the restoration movement or its significance is simply because they don't have to know, as whatever they are doing today has no bearing on that time period whatsoever. Even if you took the Restoration movement out of history in this country, you could still have men and women who would take the Bible, obey, and live it, who would be NT Christians and part of the family of God.

The important thing for a Christian is not history, though it is a faith building study. The important thing is 'am I living day by day for Christ?' That is the key.

Your charges are completely false. Which surprises me given that you labeled my hypocritical and deceitful in your previous post, and condemned it.

Terra Incognita · 01-06-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

There is one, and only one, reason why the book is resisted so strongly. IF the Book were accepted as genuine and authentic, the predictive prophecy within would constitute unavoidable proof of a divine being (i.e. God).

Ah...but which God?

You've given one interpretation of the prophecy. Here's another, which I believe to be superior.

It accepts your four kingoms: the Babylonian, the Median-Persian, the Greek, the Roman. However, it rejects your interpretation of the final kingdom--the one that destroys the others and lasts forever.

There are three principal weaknesses to your interpretation:

--As others have pointed out, the rise of the Christian church did not destroy the Roman empire. Indeed, the Roman empire continued to rise in strength in the region after the establishment the Christian church, reaching it peak almost hundred years after Jesus's death and continuing for several hundred years after that. And far from destroying the Roman empire, Christianity became the official religion of it.

What destroyed the Roman empire in this region? It was the Islamic Arabian empire. Note that not only did Islamic Arabian empire replace the Roman empire (replacing the language, religion, and cultural traditions as it did so), but it is the Islamic religion still predominates in this region and not the Christian religion.

Thus we can see that the Islamic Arabian kingdom has a better claim to be the kingdom that destroys the previous four kingdoms and the Islamic religion to be the kingdom which lasts forever.

--Your intrepretation doesn't adequately explain the symbology of the stone. You claim it represents the Christian church, but there is no special reason why that should be so. As far as I know, a stone plays no significant role in Christian symbology and Christianity can lay no special claim to it.

Islam, however, has a strong claim to be represented by a stone. That stone is the Black Stone of the Kaaba. The Kaaba is the holiest place Islam: all Muslims face towards it in prayer. And the Black Stone, in turn, is a cornerstone of the Kaaba. When millions of Muslims circle around the Kaaba during the Hajj, they pay homage to the stone as a holy relic, one that was kissed by Mohammed (pbuh) himself.

Interestingly enough, scientists believe the Black Stone is an asteroid--i.e., a stone delivered directly from the heavens to man.

Thus we can see that the stone in the prophecy that destroys the statue and becomes a great mountain surely is Islam.

--Your interpretation overlooks the importance of the symbology of feet of iron and clay.

Christianity spread with the Greco-Roman empire and became foundational to the empire. In one respect, Christianity is iron in that has the strength of a religion "of the Book." In other respect it is clay, since it preaches the heresy that Jesus is God. There is only one true God, Allah, and Mohammed (pbuh) is his prophet.

Because of this essential flaw in Greco-Roman empire's foundation, the stone of Islam is able to destroy it.

Clearly, Daniel's prophecy is about the coming of Mohammed (pbuh) and the one true religion, Islam.

The Evil One · 01-06-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

If you go back to the reformation era you will find men like the Haldane brothers, and others, who already were (in Europe, Scotland, etc) suggesting men leave behind creeds and go back to the Bible as the only guide to faith.

Which would make them, um, Protestants. Pretty much by definition.

Sola scriptura is recognised as a Protestant doctrine (though not held by all Protestant denominations).

You've still not given an example of one single belief you hold that is not also held by all brands of extremist Protestantism.

Quote:

The church of Christ did not originate with Stone or Campbell. The Catholic church, and every denomination, by their own records can point to the man who started them. Every last one of them is started hundreds of years too late to be the church spoken of in the Bible.

Many churches claim apostolic succession, that is, claims to be a direct continuation of a church founded by an apostle. The Catholic Church certainly does; the Catholic church claims to have been founded by Jesus when he said to Peter "on this rock I will build my church". Now the fact is their claims are boloney. However, your No True Scotsmanning is equal baloney (albeit quite fascinating to observe).

diana · 01-06-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Well well. Sanctimonious. The definition of that is "hypocritically pious or devout."

That's why I chose that specific word.

Quote:

The fact is I did give my sources throughout what I wrote. I have a lot of books in print, and the rest I retrieved from the internet. I did not bother providing a list because I assumed people here would be familiar. It seems as if they are.

The PM you sent me yesterday (?) says you're lying through your teeth.

Again.

d

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Diana,
You do not want to be proved wrong. If proven wrong, I doubt you'll admit it. There'll always be a way out where you can charge me, or those like me, with trying to hide, deceive, or the like. You have made a choice you do not intend to change.

But just for your information, seeing as how you evidently have zero knowledge of the restoration movement or its history in Europe (dating to the 1500's at least) and in America (dating to the 1790's at least), the fact is that churches of Christ (faithful Christians following God as God directs) have been around ever since A.D. 29 (Acts 2).

You said, "There was no distinct "Church of Christ" as you know it until ~1910. " In my files I have a picture and description of the Old Philadelphia church of Christ. It is in eastern TN, and dates, as I recall, back to the late 1700's. Prior to Thomas Campbell, prior to his son Alexander, and prior to Stone. The churches of Christ have always existed since Pentecost.

This seems particularly appropriate. I don't use Wikipedia, but mdd344 seems to consider it valid, so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ

Quote:

Self-identification

Despite some historians' portrayal of the churches' historical origin as part of a movement started by Baptist and Presbyterian preachers, members do not consider themselves Protestants, believing that Christ's church was not founded as a protest against anything and that it was founded by Jesus Christ and not by men. Members also tend not to consider themselves members of a denomination. One of the tenets of the movement holds that its member churches are not a denomination and that denominationalism is a departure from the original plan laid down in the Bible for the church.

Often the recent history of Churches of Christ as an outgrowth of the Restoration Movement is deemphasized. Their teaching tends to point only to the founding of the first-century church as their origin. One scholar, Russell Paden, has called this tendency "historylessness" while comparing the Churches of Christ to the derivative Boston movement:

Both groups have an attitude of "historylessness," meaning that they believe their religious beliefs and practices are above being influenced by anything extra-biblical, including the culture around them, contemporary social dynamics, or nearly 2,000 years of church history. In essence, each group believes that it has recreated the apostolic first-century church with all the perfection of the first ecclesiastical age.[2]

However, scholarly journals produced at Church-affiliated institutions do exhibit awareness of the history of American Churches of Christ, examining subjects such as the changing makeup of church hymnals, and the various historical baptism controversies: an example is Abilene Christian University's Restoration Quarterly.

Historically, individuals in the Churches of Christ have aspired to be members of the one body of Christ described in the New Testament, without denominational affiliation. Traditionally, they have viewed congregational identity not as denominational identity, but rather as a reconstruction of church identity described in the New Testament (for example, the churches in Corinth and Galatia as described in the Pauline epistles.)

There has been substantial debate of the identity of Churches of Christ as a denomination in recent years with a few now embracing the view that the Church of Christ is a denomination, or that it has at least embraced denominational attitudes. The debate hinges, to a large extent, upon the issue of whether to embrace a historical or transhistorical or anti-historical ecclesiology.

It should be noted that many churches *claim* to be recreations of the 1st century church. This is particularly prevalent among pentecostal churches who - contrary to mdd344's church - take the view that signs & wonders are still occurring today, and did not stop with the 1st century.

cjack · 01-06-2007, 01:29 PM

Note though that mdd344 never capitalizes "Church" when he claims to be a member of the "church of Christ," thus differentiating his denomination, which is no doubt the "True" church...

It would be interesting to know what the sign outside the church mdd344 says.

Talulah · 01-06-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

In my files I have a picture and description of the Old Philadelphia church of Christ. It is in eastern TN, and dates, as I recall, back to the late 1700's. Prior to Thomas Campbell, prior to his son Alexander, and prior to Stone. The churches of Christ have always existed since Pentecost.

Is this the one you're talking about? http://www.southernstandard.net/news...iewStory=21723

Quote:

OLD PHILADELPHIA CHURCH
Originally constructed around 1830, Old Philadelphia Church on Vervilla Road was placed on the National Register of Historic Places for its significance to the history of religion in Warren County. The Philadelphia Church of Christ served as the center of the Restoration Movement’s evangelistic efforts in eastern Middle Tennessee. Efforts to restore the building came together in 1985 when a committee was formed and the plea for funds issued.

So, no, it was not prior to either the Campbells or Stone.

diana · 01-06-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Diana,
You do not want to be proved wrong. If proven wrong, I doubt you'll admit it.

Give me some proof--not assertions, which you run high on--I'm wrong, then we'll see how I respond.

Quote:

But just for your information, seeing as how you evidently have zero knowledge of the restoration movement...

Assertion. Nice.

What I've said is accepted history, even within the COC. Scholars have confirmed it.

Quote:

or its history in Europe (dating to the 1500's at least)

Uh. Are you confusing the Restoration Movement with the Reformation Movement, perhaps?

Quote:

and in America (dating to the 1790's at least), the fact is that churches of Christ (faithful Christians following God as God directs) have been around ever since A.D. 29 (Acts 2).

The only fact is that the CsoC claim this. Note what I said earlier about your inability to differentiate claims from actual evidence.

Quote:

...In addition, no church has to be able to trace their roots back to Acts 2.

At least that much is true.

Burden of proof is yours. (Claims do not constitute proof. I know you've been told this many times already, but if my students have taught me anything, it is that I can repeat one idea sometimes 20 times before it sinks in. And they aren't even deadset against what I have to say, like you are.)

I note that "completely false" in mdd parlance means "against what I have chosen to believe, evidence notwithstanding." I take that as a compliment.

d

diana · 01-06-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

Note though that mdd344 never capitalizes "Church" when he claims to be a member of the "church of Christ," thus differentiating his denomination, which is no doubt the "True" church...

It would be interesting to know what the sign outside the church mdd344 says.

They always say "The Church of Christ meets here" or something very similar.

d

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2007, 01:29 PM	#217
cjack Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Arizona Posts: 4,294	Note though that mdd344 never capitalizes "Church" when he claims to be a member of the "church of Christ," thus differentiating his denomination, which is no doubt the "True" church... It would be interesting to know what the sign outside the church mdd344 says.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.