Things you don't miss about the c of c

[teresa]

agricola

Petros once told me to "never underestimate the ignorance of the CoC".

When I was a new Christian (having been an atheist before that) I asked an elder's wife about a passage in Hebrews; she referred me to her husband for an answer.

A few months later I asked an elder on Wednesday night what the "love feasts" were in the Bible. He asked me where I had read it, but I couldn't remember. He laughed and said there was no such thing mentioned in the Bible.

When Petros agreed to a written discussion with a relative, which was being sent out to others (not sure why, other than to pressure Petros or try to shame him perhaps), his relative refused to print what Petros wrote because it might confuse and wrongly convince "good, simple people in the CoC".

A relative of Petros quit his written discussion with me because he found my arguments compelling and he was afraid that he might be hoodwinked by them.

[Cootie Brown]

c of C folks pride themselves for being more knowledgeable about the Bible than denominational believers, and for the most part I agree with that. Based on my experience, I think there are two reasons for that. First, they tend to view the Bible as God in written form. Do they worship the Bible as God? They would say no, but their actions dictate, if they don’t, they come dangerously close to doing that.

Second, their belief that the Bible is inerrant and literally God breathed. And that connects with their tendency to at least appear to worship the Bible. In any case the Bible is their only accepted truth for all things related to God.

I know my faith was contingent upon the Bible being the inerrant literal words of God because that’s the message I got from my c of C indoctrination. When I discovered sufficient evidence that proved to me that the Bible is neither literally true or historically accurate my faith immediately vanished.

Therefore, putting all their eggs, so to speak, in the Bible’s basket can backfire on them when the origins and evolution of the Bible is explored from a pure academic and historical perspective. That, and the evidence seems to indicate the c of C actually believes it is correct worship that saves a person. If not, why do they emphasize correct worship so strongly and say incorrect worship will doom the offender to hell? Cause we know there ain’t no pianos in heaven! And we know the Devil is the only one that plays a guitar and his demons play the drums!

[ena]

(As a guy, I don't think I would want to wear shoes without socks, so bare feet in shoes baffles me.)

Not unusual among those that believe that grounding helps the body chemically. Some will even walk barefoot in the dirt. Supposedly it supplies the body with extra electrons to cause less need for antioxidants. Oxygen comes with a -2 valence chemically in ionic form. It combines with other chemicals that form a +2 valence or +1. Such as example is water hydrogen is +1 so there are 2 hydrogens for one oxygen. H2O. Google grounding to find out more.

[Lerk]

"BAPTISTS ARE TOO LIBERAL IN THEIR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONS."

There you have it.
Baptists are too liberal.

Instrumental music! What could be more liberal? Kitchens in the building! (And we in the NI CoC used to [still do, I guess] refer to the mainline churches as the "liberal" churches of Christ. Either that, or "our institutional brethren".)

[Lerk]

Second, their belief that the Bible is inerrant and literally God breathed. And that connects with their tendency to at least appear to worship the Bible. In any case the Bible is their only accepted truth for all things related to God.

The Word was with God and the Word was God. The Bible is the Word. Jesus is the Word. It's all the same thing! So the Bible is God! Make sense? No? You mean the Trinity doesn't make sense, either?

Even when I was a believer, I wondered whether the "Logos" concept in John was a Mars Hill/Unknown god kind of a thing. The Logos was a Greek concept imported into Judaism by Philo of Alexandria but not, as far as I know, widely accepted. Apparently the author of John either accepted it, or else was writing his Gospel for Jews who accepted it, trying to transfer that concept to Christianity.

[FCOCER]

"BAPTISTS ARE TOO LIBERAL IN THEIR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONS."

There you have it.
Baptists are too liberal.

nstrumental music! What could be more liberal? Kitchens in the building! (And we in the NI CoC used to [still do, I guess] refer to the mainline churches as the "liberal" churches of Christ. Either that, or "our institutional brethren".)

I heard a NI preacher say, "some refer to them as our institutional brethren, but they are NOT really our brethren at all." This was one of the last sermons I heard him preach.

I

[agricola]

You go in a Roman Catholic church, and they have a crucifix right down front and center (a crucifix, for those who aren't aware, is a cross with Jesus on it).
You go in a lot of Protestant churches, and they have a cross right down front and center (a cross, for those who aren't aware, is a cross WITHOUT Jesus on it - this is a significant doctrinal 'thing' separating Roman Catholic and Protestant focus: Jesus suffering for your sins vs Jesus resurrected. Make of it what you will, but a RC will wear a crucifix and a Protestant will (or should, if they are aware of the difference) wear an empty cross).

You go in a mosque, and there is an indicator point on the focus wall which shows where Mecca is - and people pray toward that - toward Mecca. IN Mecca, they pray toward the Ka'aba.

You go in a synagogue,and there is a cabinet down front and center, with a light above it which is always lit, and in the cabinet ('ark') there are the scrolls of the Torah - AND that ark, light and scroll are on the wall nearest Jerusalem, so people pray toward Jerusalem. IN Jerusalem, they pray toward Temple Mount.

You go in a coc and guess what is TYPICALLY down front (along with the baptistry with the imaginary Jordan River on it)? A Bible is typically down front, where people face to pray. Sometimes they add some 'praying hands'. No cross. No crucifix. If there is ever a cross in a coc (that I've ever seen) it is on the table where they lay out the Lord's Supper which is engraved with 'this do in remembrance of me', right?

Oh yeah, definitely, the message is the Bible = God/Jesus and leaving the coc (any coc) for another church is identical with abandoning God/Jesus/Bible.

I know that, as a child, I definitely assumed (logically from what I was taught) that the Bible more or less pre-existed the establishment of the church, rather than being a product of it.

Different mindset altogether, isn't it?
And I don't THINK that was the original idea of the whole movement - I think the original idea involved seeing the Bible as a guide TOWARD God, not as a God in itself.

Is there are name for that sort of thing? I bet there is. Mistaking a signpost for the destination -

Suddenly I'm reminded of those little people living in the locker in the Men In Black movies, who worshiped what was immediately before them, instead of the reality which produced it.

[Ivy]

I heard a NI preacher say, "some refer to them as our institutional brethren, but they are NOT really our brethren at all."

How arrogant could they get?

I think some people were ambivalent about whether the "institutional brethren" were in the fold, so tried to avoid talking about it.

My mom's parents and sister were involved in an institutional church in another town, so I think Mom chose to believe that they were ok since the sign over the door was correct. God rest their souls; they are all gone now.

[Lerk]

You go in a Roman Catholic church, and they have a crucifix right down front and center (a crucifix, for those who aren't aware, is a cross with Jesus on it)... .

Interesting point!

And I don't THINK that was the original idea of the whole movement - I think the original idea involved seeing the Bible as a guide TOWARD God, not as a God in itself.

Preacher at the church I'm going to recently mentioned that he had a lot more in common with Barton W. Stone than with Alexander Campbell. I really know very little about Stone. I know that Campbell was motivated to end the division that existed due to every denomination and sub-denomination (being a Presbyterian minister, it was the different Presbyterian groups) each believing that the others weren't Christians that upset him. He believed there were Christians in all denominations. That's the biggest irony -- the denomination he accidentally founded became the worst example, and is practically the last holdout, of the thing he was trying to get rid of.

[ena]

You go in a Roman Catholic church, and they have a crucifix right down front and center (a crucifix, for those who aren't aware, is a cross with Jesus on it)... .

Interesting point!

And I don't THINK that was the original idea of the whole movement - I think the original idea involved seeing the Bible as a guide TOWARD God, not as a God in itself.

Preacher at the church I'm going to recently mentioned that he had a lot more in common with Barton W. Stone than with Alexander Campbell. I really know very little about Stone. I know that Campbell was motivated to end the division that existed due to every denomination and sub-denomination (being a Presbyterian minister, it was the different Presbyterian groups) each believing that the others weren't Christians that upset him. He believed there were Christians in all denominations. That's the biggest irony -- the denomination he accidentally founded became the worst example, and is practically the last holdout, of the thing he was trying to get rid of.

The Church of Christ often gets Alexander Campbell backwards. Campbell received a Baptist baptism which the CoC would not recognize then proceeds to do its own thing. Then they turn around and claim that it is a first century church. In the first century you did not have a Bible. This was not agreed on until the end of the 4th century. This is nearly 400 years after the death of Jesus. We do have Bible's from about 350 AD. They contain differences to the King James. There are Greek textual differences. There are opposing views of authorship, additions, Letters that may not be Paul's even though they claim to be. Claims of inerrantcy are merely for careful parsing of scripture to be able the condemn other. For this reason the CoC stands condemned. Whether a church is or is not part of the Reformation is of no import today.

Denominational Churches often know their own history. The Church of Christ does not know it own history. The crucifix vs the empty cross is significant. The crucifix focuses on a dead Jesus the empty cross focuses on the resurrection. There are two categories of ressurrection. The first will participate in the kingdom of Christ for 1000 years. The second will be dumped into the Lake of Fire. This is made clear in Revelation 20. It is the basis of the wages of sin are death. This dates from Adam and Eve through sacrifices to the sacrifice of Jesus. Yes it is horrible but foundational to Judaism and Christianity. Jesus talks about this many times.