"Traces of the Kingdom" Refutation project

[Walkingfreely]

Interesting blog. I often wondered when someone might try to answer Traces of the Kingdom.

In my experience, many people referenced his work and my FIL recently brought it up but by this time I had already deemed that work as utterly unviable and totally irrelevant to any of my conclusions to leave the CoC and become Orthodox.

For comparison, and I am sure you have come to these conclusions but for me it was a real struggle to reconcile these contradictions, read history with as blank a slate as possible thus making my own conclusions or read the history of staunch CoC apologists and conform. I could not do that but for some reason intelligent and learned people (Father in Law) can do that and do it with the greatest of ease. I felt like a hypocrite and during the struggle to reconcile history I became a very angry and frankly pompous person when trying to discuss historical matters in this context. I'm paying for it today and still feel like an outcast at certain family get togethers. But I could not and finally decided to publicly not be the hypocrite by looking CoC 3 days a week and the rest be myself. It was real torture and it frustrates me that today, these folk can make statements about "the church", "the bible" and the first century church like it is some static moment in time that is to be recreated without regard for what was said by people from antiquity picking and choosing what suits their ends and desires today. To me that was dishonest.

It is one thing to prefer a system of theology and practice over others but it is something completely different that claims to have recreated the 1st century church today and that all others are hell bound man made religions in light of their total distortion of the historical reality and lack of continuity with history.

Very accurate "inside" view of their works-based system. It is slavery. I am about to put out the second response. There will be several, but this work needs to be put down for good. It is wrong.

[Walkingfreely]

If their lack of historical skill is so poor I doubt their actual biblical research is any better. They always argued that baptize always means to immerse but their is a verse in ben sirachm about being cleansed from touching a dead body that uses the greek baptizo for being sprinkled as cleansing or washed. Like I said I am beginning to think they are just wilful liars and like the pharisees have blasphemous the holy ghost in their own way. Blasphemy is not just verbal insult insult against the holy but wilful rebellion.

Yes - they are Pharisees - swimming in the truth but never reaching out to Jesus like Peter did so he can survive the storm

[Walkingfreely]

One time years ago someone claimed a certain Catholic writer in the middle ages was church of christ because he called the church of he church of christ. I look the guys writings up online and one of his books was written and dedicated to the pope living at the time. I know lots of coc members and preachers are just dumb but that took the cake.

Yes, when you read Catholic literature they do indeed refer to themselves as the church of Christ. The Catholics were the first to use the name CoC.

This is the entire flaw of "Traces of the Kingdom" Anyone who says "Church of Christ" He latches on to and ignores or does not address if they believed as current COC does

[Walkingfreely]

Interesting blog. I often wondered when someone might try to answer Traces of the Kingdom.

In my experience, many people referenced his work and my FIL recently brought it up but by this time I had already deemed that work as utterly unviable and totally irrelevant to any of my conclusions to leave the CoC and become Orthodox.

For comparison, and I am sure you have come to these conclusions but for me it was a real struggle to reconcile these contradictions, read history with as blank a slate as possible thus making my own conclusions or read the history of staunch CoC apologists and conform. I could not do that but for some reason intelligent and learned people (Father in Law) can do that and do it with the greatest of ease. I felt like a hypocrite and during the struggle to reconcile history I became a very angry and frankly pompous person when trying to discuss historical matters in this context. I'm paying for it today and still feel like an outcast at certain family get togethers. But I could not and finally decided to publicly not be the hypocrite by looking CoC 3 days a week and the rest be myself. It was real torture and it frustrates me that today, these folk can make statements about "the church", "the bible" and the first century church like it is some static moment in time that is to be recreated without regard for what was said by people from antiquity picking and choosing what suits their ends and desires today. To me that was dishonest.

It is one thing to prefer a system of theology and practice over others but it is something completely different that claims to have recreated the 1st century church today and that all others are hell bound man made religions in light of their total distortion of the historical reality and lack of continuity with history.

It is so hard to read with a blank slate - that God Himself needs to help you to do so - at least that is my experience.

[Walkingfreely]

One time years ago someone claimed a certain Catholic writer in the middle ages was church of christ because he called the church of he church of christ. I look the guys writings up online and one of his books was written and dedicated to the pope living at the time. I know lots of coc members and preachers are just dumb but that took the cake.

Yes, when you read Catholic literature they do indeed refer to themselves as the church of Christ. The Catholics were the first to use the name CoC.

Yes, as were the Mormons, as were Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. The claim to name isn't the issue - but this book volume falls apart for that very reason. The minute the author sees a "reference" he runs with it.

[gordie91]

It is hard to read with a blank slate but as an objectivist one method is to check and re-check my premise. If I am unable to eliminate contradictions then I must get rid of the premise and start over. Two questions that help are why do I think something is true and how do I know it to be true. That is what I mean by a blank slate. We all have perspective and comfortable places of belief but in the end have to make a choice. Now that I am orthodox, my perspective is different but instead of finding legalities it is more of living within the community. I may not understand something that is said or done but through living it out as best I can and trusting the "process" allows me to not be critical but to be receptive.

In the CoC, this is not acceptable because of the individual acceptance of rules and regulations in light of Baconism philosophy. In other words, word studies upon word studies so that we can get it right and tell others how to get it right all with the view to mimic a certain moment in time- the First Century.

[Cootie Brown]

I can’t help but laugh when I read stuff like this. Christians attacking Christians pointing out all of their flaws, misconceptions, misinterpretations, historical inaccuracies, etc. Then pointing out how closed minded they are believing traditions rather than facts and evidence.

I find it both hunerous and a little sad when I hear a Christian asking a Mormon how they could believe such obvious non-sense. But when a non-believer points out these same flaws, inaccuracies, cult like traits, and unbelievable traditions & teachings to a Christian,...they explode with anger and issued threats of eternal damnation to anyone that dare question their Holy Scriptures or the God(s) they worship.

Christians, for some reason, believe they are exempt from having their scriptures, beliefs, and tradition critically analyzed. Why is that? Christians have no evidence what so ever that validates their beliefs, but they think their Bible is their proof and evidence that their beliefs, teaching, and traditions are literally true and historically accurate.

Historical scholars see that very differently, but then again religion is about faith not evidence. I think that means one man’s beliefs is no better or worse than another man’s, because nobody can prove a belief is true if there is no verifiable evidence to support it.

If a particular religion appeals to someone and it provides them with hope & some degree of happiness, then, at least for them, it’s a good religion.

[B.H.]

I love the Book of Mormon because of its stories. In the book of mormon therecare stories about people having miracles performed on them or others just like in the bible. There was a tale in the book of mormon were a whole lot of men started praying and repenting and their were healed of their malady and surrounded by a cloud that made them feel real good. Hey a group of men saw and were in a miracle and eyewitnesses prove stuff so the book of mormon is true. no one would ever write a story and fraudulently create witnesses to fraudulent events and manage to dupe people. No. No. No. Never.

[Ivy]

If a particular religion appeals to someone and it provides them with hope & some degree of happiness, then, at least for them, it’s a good religion.

I just fainted. Cootie, you came around to my way of thinking!!

[Cootie Brown]

I love the Book of Mormon because of its stories. In the book of mormon therecare stories about people having miracles performed on them or others just like in the bible. There was a tale in the book of mormon were a whole lot of men started praying and repenting and their were healed of their malady and surrounded by a cloud that made them feel real good. Hey a group of men saw and were in a miracle and eyewitnesses prove stuff so the book of mormon is true. no one would ever write a story and fraudulently create witnesses to fraudulent events and manage to dupe people. No. No. No. Never.

I certainly prefer the Mormon version of Heaven over the Christian version.