Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 8

concern regarding re-direct/disambiguation
why was the re-direct removed for "Church of Christ" to make this name go directly to the disambiguation page? This should be changed back because most people looking for information about "Churches of Christ" will type in "Church of Christ." This change will only confuse people. Can we change this back to the way it was ("Church of Christ" redirects to "Churches of Christ" at which point anyone can hit "disambiguation" if they wish to look at other uses for "Church of Christ")? Again, most anyone who wants info about the religious body/tradition known as Church of Christ will type in "Church of Christ" rather than "Churches of Christ." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.10.107 (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The dab-hat on this page should at least give some idea about what this article is about - that is unclear enough even without removing the note! JPD (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Added back disambiguation paragraph. Added Church of Christ/Christian Church, and Church of Christ (non-institutional) to the disambiguation paragraph. jonathon (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While it's probably true that most people who are looking for info on churches of Christ will search under "Church of Christ," the reverse is not true: It's by no means clear that most people typing in "Church of Christ" are looking for this article. For example, the United Church of Christ, International Church of Christ, "independent Churches of Christ," and Latter-day Saints (as well as Latter Day Saints) all are commonly referred to as the "Church of Christ," in my experience, and that's just the word of one Texan; even that argument involves laying aside the fact that Wikipedia is intended for worldwide use, where there exist many more usages and much less awareness of the group discussed in the present article. While the discussion may have been archived or be way back toward the top of this Talk page, there was considerable previous deliberation before this article was moved to the heading "Churches of Christ," and I support the move in conjunction with the disambiguation page.

importance of factual info
Someone added the following to this entree, and others continue to keep placing this in the entree for some reason: "Churches of Christ represent themselves as autonomous Christian congregations linked historically in America to the American Restoration Movement and are associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. Historically, they came about as part of the early 19th Century Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) split from the Presbyterian Church.."

This is false information. It's just plain wrong. Please refrain from including opinionated and erroneous info such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.242.230 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The most reliable sources do not confirm your interpretation of the history of the Churches of Christ. Content at Wikipedia must be backed up by reliable sources.  Before editing the article again please bring at least three reliable sources that are independent of the Churches of Christ to this talk page, to back up the information. --Ichabod (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should reveal what "reliable resources" you refer to. Regardless though, any source that claims Churches of Christ came out of the Presbyterian Church is ignorant of the historical and biblical reality of Churches of Christ.  Let me educate you some Ichabod, in reality, all history is somewhat opinionated because it is written by people.  Usually, it is at least based on facts, but not necessarily all factual.  The history you wish to use for Churches of Christ is blatantly based on opinions of unlearned people regarding this religious fellowship.  Please take your anomosity towards the Church of Christ some place else so that Wikipedia can grow out of the ridiculous reputation it has in academia.   65.4.68.225   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since your recent changes did not include any references, I have reverted them. Please make sure that changes are referenced to reliable sources, preferably sources independent of the church itself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--I encourage FisherQueen to apply this same standard to the article on the Roman Catholic Church as that whole article is based on biased information that has been generated by the Roman Catholic denomination. From another perspective, sources from either within or without a religious group are not necessarily factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying about the change you want to make in this article, and the sources that support it. Right now, this is the article I'm helping out with, but if you want to work on Roman Catholic Church instead, I'm sure there are experienced editors there who will be glad to help you.   If you're still interested in Churches of Christ, though, this is the part where you explain what the change you want to make is, and what the independent sources are that support it.   -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On my side, I offer a few sources verifying my understanding of the history: that the origins of the church are in the Restoration Movement, led by Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell, both Presbyterian ministers.


 * Encyclopedia Brittanica- Alexander Campbell
 * Encyclopedia Brittanica- Barton Stone
 * excerpt from "Biographical Sketches of Gospel Preachers" book
 * West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly
 * a professor at Pepperdine University -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---Stone and Campbell had roots in the Presbyterian Church, yes. These are but two individuals who became part of the Church of Christ (which had been in existence for centuries). Many people during Stone's and Campbells time (the 1800's) also joined the Church of Christ - out of many denominations. Even if one credits Stone and Campbell with starting the Church of Christ (which would be erroneous to state), to say the Church of Christ came out of the Presbyterian Church, merely because these two men had former ties with the Presbyterian Church, would be erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Price Roberts Studies for New Converts pages 87-92, we have:
 * James O'Kelly, Methodist, 1793, Virginia;
 * Dr Abner Jones, Baptist, 1800, Connecticut;
 * Barton W Stone, Presbyterian, 1801, Kentucky;
 * Thomas Campbell, Presbyterian, 1807, Virginia;
 * Alexander Campbell, Presbyterian, 1809,
 * John Wright, Free Baptist, 1810, Indiana;

Then consider that Campbell was mending fences between the Christian Churches,and the Presbyterians, when he was still in Scotland. It looks like had the Presbyterian churches not been so intent on excommunicating those individuals/congregations, the CoC would never have happened. (And don't forget who the state church of Scotland was at that point in time.) jonathon (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1793: Baltimore Conference - Christians Simply.(ex-Methodists);
 * 1801: The Springfield Presbytery;
 * 1808: The Christian Association of Washington,PA; (This had been a Seeder Presbyterian congregation);
 * 1810: Free Baptist Church;
 * 1810: The Christian Association.(ex-Presbyterians.);
 * 1811: Brush Run Church;
 * 1813: Association of Free Baptists;
 * 1813: Redstone Baptist Association;
 * 1816: Mahoning Baptist Association;
 * 1832: Christian Connection. (Unification of Stone and Campbell's congregations.);

To contend that "the Church of Christ" is an offshoot of the Presbyterian church simply because some members left the Presbyterian church would be to maintain that Muslim converts to Catholicism "proves" that the Roman Catholic church is an offshoot of Islam! Since this is (1) highly disputed and (2) illogical, please remove this claim so that only clear and undisputed facts remain on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.1 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * a) Your analogy falls apart, because your ex-Muslims did not form a new congregation. Nor did they form a new denomination;
 * b) In Scotland, CoC and The Church of Scotland were "talking" with each other, in an effort to join forces. Whilst ultimately unsuccessful, it none the less supports the hypothesis that CoC is an offshoot of Presbyterianism. In the US, at least two of the early churches were congregations that had been Presbyterian. Furthermore, the most important leaders of the Restoration Movement had been Presbyterians;
 * c) The dispute is whether CoC is an offshoot of Presbyterians, Baptists, both, or neither. The history of the Restoration Movement supports all four positions;
 * d) In all instances, the critical issue is that citations be provided, that substantiate what is written in the article;jonathon (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Those in the church of Christ similarly do not believe that Stone or Campbell formed a new denomination - therefore, the analogy fits. The fact that some were wanting to join with another church doesn't speak of anything wider than those two churches.

To say, "The history of the Restoration Movement supports all four positions" is to give up this position, choosing "Presbyterianism" as the one-true-answer. To say that "Some claim that the church of Christ is an offshoot of Presbyterianism, some Baptists, some both, and some neither" would be an accurate statement, and would probably not be deleted repeatedly as the other quote is. As far as a citation goes, consider this: They brought together many from Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches, and other Christians across a spectrum of Evangelical and also Unitarian Christianity, at first with astounding success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism#Restoration_Movement

Obviously, some are convinced that the church of Christ is not "an offshoot of the Presbyterian church." As there is dispute over this statement, it should not be part of this entry; let's stick to documented facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.1 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Congregational Leadership
I added a couple of sentences about leadership in the appropriate section. While I myself am a member of the Chuch of Christ, I do see how this could confuse an outsider looking at a congregation without elders.Dorkycool06 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm generally okay with what you did, although I removed the part about aspiring to elder leadership. That's not necessarily true (depending on what you mean by it) and even if it is it's nearly impossible to cite.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New Testament worship references
"Basis of a Cappella worship practice There is no evidence that first-century churches used instruments in worship. Furthermore, all New Testament Scripture references to worshiping God in song never mention instruments. Only the voice, heart, and spirit are mentioned in commands to worship with singing." I feel like this statement is misleading and is not based on a neutral interpretation of scripture. Ephesians 5:19 says (KJV) "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." If you look up the word "psalms" in the Strong's concordance (#5568) it states a psalm is "a sacred ode accompanied with the voice,harp or other instrument". I feel the above statment that the NT never mentions instruments stands in clear opposition to the scripture in Ephesians. With this in mind these two statements should be eliminated or at least reworded to convey that this is how the COC interprets the NT references to worship. JCrowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamroncrojr (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---actually, the "psalms" mentioned in the scripture refers to the words of praise in the Psalms, not that some Psalms in the OT were accompanied by instruments. Furthermore, the passage plainly states to speak the psalms and also that the melody being made is in the heart (instruments are not included in the text). Again, as with most modern Churches of Christ and the original churches of the first century (even up to the 6th century), the worship tradition was a cappella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The title
Would there be any support for moving this article to Churches of Christ (non-instrumental)? With all the different groups that use this name, it can be a little confusing... the distinction might be helpful, and the title Churches of Christ could be turned in to a redirect to the disambiguation page Church of Christ. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--no, the article is better and more accurate the way it is. The reality is that not all Churches of Christ are "non-instrumental." Also, a cappella Churches of Christ are basically the same body as those that use instruments. Further, Churches of Christ do not even refer to themselves as "non-instrumental." When the worship tradition is used to identify a particular congregation, it is improper to refer to the church as "non-instrumental." Rather, when this distinction is used, a Church of Christ should always be referred to as "a cappella". However, this article should not be changed to "Churches of Christ (non-instrumental) or even (a cappella) for that matter, any more than a Catholic Church article should be labeled as "Roman Catholic Church (paintings)" or a Greek Orthodox article should be changed to "Greek Orthodox (icons)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.184.19 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But the text of the article currently is only about the "non-instrumental" churches. Either this should change, or the title change is a good idea, simply to make it clear that the article is not discussing other C/churches of Christ. JPD (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is only about the non-instrumental churches, and there are other articles for the other branches. They're listed in my most recent version, although this most recent edit-war has included the deletion of the branch most closely related to this one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * actually, the text of this article indicates that the Churches of Christ that use instruments are connected to the a cappella congregations. This distinction in various congregations is a preference just like in various local congregations within various church traditions some only have classical (traditional) worship songs and others have contemporary or even rock type worship music.    To change the title of this article to what has been suggested shows a misunderstanding of the autonomous nature of Churches of Christ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplest way to understand the theology of the dozen major strains of this denomination, is to put the most significant theological difference in parenthesis after the name. In this specific instance, Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) is a more suitable moniker. I am deliberately ignoring both the churches that don't use instruments during a service, that are affiliated with Church of Christ (Instrumental), and churches that use an instrument, that are affiliated with Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). Such is the complexity of CoC theology, and how affiliations are made and broken. jonathon (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This specific article is about Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). Church of Christ (Instrumental) has a different article. Church of Christ (Non-Institutional) has its own article. I thought I had seen a Church of Christ (One Cup) article as well,but it doesn't have any of the expected names.  :(  jonathon (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an existing article about the nearest relation to these churches at Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. The link to it was deleted by the anon who is making changes to the article, and I'd very much like to see it restored, but... this article really is just about the a capella churches. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your own comments betray the pointlessness of such artificial divisions, since you admit there are both As and Bs in 'A who don't B', and Bs and As in 'B who don't A'. The difference between using or not using instruments, a capellas, or music is a minor subdivision of a smaller church. Instead, this article should focus on the theological distinctions which evolved to separate this group from the previous church it split from, explained in good RS-sourced fashion. Arguing that we need essentially FOUR articles for this group based on a single distinction is absurd. We'd need Church of Christ (Instrumental), Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental), Church of Christ (Non-instrumental associated with Instrumental movement), and Church of Christ (Instrumental associated with Non-Instrumental movement). At this point, we'd be at Blue eyes, Brown eyes, Blue eyes (wearing brown contacts), and Brown eyes(wearing blue contacts). If these distinctions are too numerous for THIS article, then all dozen should be in an article Divisions within the Churches of Christ''. I haven't seen any particularly strong arguments for splitting as is being proposed. ThuranX (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Using your terms, the articles are more akin to Red Eye, Black Eye, and Pink Eye, than the wearing of different coloured contact lenses.jonathon (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is proposing an article split. What is being proposed is a more accurate title for this article. This article is about Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental). The other groups   Church of Christ (Instrumental), Church of Christ (One Cup), Church of Christ (Mutual Edification), Church of Christ (Non-Institutional) --- currently have their own articles, that indicates how they differ theologically from this specific splintering of the CoC. Given the fist fights, lawsuits, and violence that congregations have hurled at those who differ, calling the differences  minor, is a gross understatement. The evolution of the differences can be found in former versions of this article.  That material was deleted by anonymous editors who didn't like the way their specific theological ax was treated. Which is why the other articles were created. jonathon (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Congregation affiliation within CoC is hard to grok. Geography, history, and theology affect how any specific congregation works with any other specific congregation. This is the subject of PhD dissertations, not Wikipedia articles. jonathon (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] I think the point about Church of Christ (One Cup) and others is important, but cuts the opposite way as you're arguing, Pseudo Daoist. Those groups you mention are subdivisions, but all fall under a single umbrella recognized by the government, religious researchers, etc.--namely "Church of Christ." That's what this article is about--it talks about what mainline churches generally do and mentions variances that may or may not deserve their own articles. As to the other groups mentioned at the very top of the article (United Church of Christ, etc.): these are considered by nearly everyone to be separate denominations that are distinguished by their different names and historical lineages.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The differences between Church of Christ (One Cup) and Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) are on a par with the differences between UMC and AMEC. I doubt anybody ever seriously suggested that those two organizations ought to be described in one article, that also covers the umpteen other offspring of the Wesley brothers. Yet that is exactly what you are proposing here.jonathon (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the degree of difference, and I think most religious studies researchers would agree with me. A more apt comparison to what you're talking about with methodists is the difference between the Churches of Christ, Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and International Churches of Christ.  Nearly every non-wikipedia source out there classifies one-cuppers, non-institutionalists, etc. as minor subgroups within the churches of christ.  For example, I have a directory on my shelf of the Churches of Christ in the United States that lists congregations what identify with these subgroups alongside the mainstream churches (it merely notes in the margin that the church is a certain type of one-cup, no sunday school, non-institutional, etc.).  Likewise, nearly every study into the religious habits of Americans that's been done in the past 80 years has classified the CofC, DOC, Christian Church, and ICOC as separate denominations but does not treat those other groups as a separate fellowship.  What you are proposing here goes against what's been standard practice in every arena of religious studies.  --Velvet elvis81 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Request restoration of two sections
editprotected Given that 24 hours have passed without our anonymous editor offering any sources in support of her view of the history of the Churches of Christ, and given that I have offered several sources in support of the version of the history which was in place before the anon made his changes, do we support restoring the versions of the introduction and the 'doctrine' section that exist in my most recent reversion? Note that I do not want a full revert, as User:Peruvianllama has made some useful changes since then that should be kept, just the restoration of the introduction section and the 'doctrine' section. Yes, I have the power to just do it myself, but since I'm already involved, I don't want to use my admin powers in support of my position in an edit-war. If we are in consensus, though, we can agree to place here and a neutral admin will carry out our desired change. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support that change. jonathon (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To simplify, could you please reproduce the exact text that you would like to insert or replace? It's not quite clear to me. Sandstein (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The next subsection Request Changes is what is being requested. I've used "nowiki" tags to display the content more legibly. I didn't reproduce the data in the infobox, as that is not being discussed here.jonathon (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested Changes
The Churches of Christ discussed in this article are not part of the Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ; The churches of Christ %28non-institutional%29; the United Church of Christ; the Disciples of Christ; the International Churches of Christ; the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science); The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement; the Churches of Christ in Australia; the Fellowship of Churches of Christ in the United Kingdom; the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand; or the Philippines-based Iglesia ni Cristo.

Churches of Christ represent themselves as autonomous Christian congregations linked historically in the U.S to the American Restoration Movement and are associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. Historically, they came about as part of the early 19th Century Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) split from the Presbyterian Church, as a later part of the Great Awakening movement. During the 1800s, these were all the same group of Churches with no distinctions. Over time, differences evolved, which gave rise to periodic splits. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) formed over certain protests over the use of creeds required by the Presbyterian Church. The leaders of the Disciples of Christ founders argued that creeds are man-made, and have no place in determining church membership or identity. Rather a belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord should be the only requirement. A division between these churches occurred on the question of church support for institutions. A further split occurred between churches that practiced and required non-instrumental music (singing only) in their congregations, and those that did not.

Doctrine
Modern Churches of Christ in America, and some elsewhere, are linked to the Restoration Movement, which was a converging of several Christians across denominational lines who sought a return to original, "pre-denominational" Christianity. Like many other individuals and Christian groups throughout the history of Christianity, the Restoration Movement was an attempt to seek doctrine and practice in the Bible only rather than recognizing the decisions of councils and denominational hierarchies that had evolved since the first century.

Churches of Christ generally have these distinctive traits:


 * The refusal to hold to any formalized creeds or statements of faith, in preference for the Bible itself


 * Autonomous, congregational church organization without denominational oversight


 * Local governance by a plurality of male elders


 * Baptism by immersion only (in obedience to the New Testament command/example, i.e., baptizo) performed on consenting individuals (i.e., not infants) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins


 * The weekly observance of Communion, also referred to as the Lord's Supper


 * The practice of a cappella singing in worship (although some related congregations use instruments in worship, usually known as Christian Churches)

In keeping with their history, Churches of Christ claim the New Testament as their sole rule of faith and practice in deciding matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical structure. Although they view the Old Testament as divinely inspired and historically accurate, they do not see its laws as binding under the New Covenant in Christ (unless they are repeated in the New Testament). They believe that the New Testament demonstrates how a person may become a Christian, thus a part of the universal church of Christ, and how a church should be collectively organized and carry out its scriptural purposes.

end of section
If the requested changes aren't what I think they are, edit the sub-section Requested Changes to reflect what they should be, and provide an explanation here of why those changes are correct. jonathon (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. Yep, that's the sections as those who chimed in agreed they ought to be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the following quote made by 65.4.68.225 from Requested Changes:

info in this paragraph is factually incorrect. It's ridiculous and ignorant to make this part of the article in the manner it's written here (primarily - "Historically, they came about as part of the early 19th Century Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) split from the Presbyterian Church, as a later part of the Great Awakening movement." If this is included in the article, it WILL not survive long.  It reads like it was meant to be a comment about the text, not a replacement of the text. The talk page sub-section Importance of Factual Information lists several sources, and a synopsis of why that claim is accurate.jonathon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. Anon, you are still welcome to clearly explain what you think the history of this group of churches is, and the independent sources that verify that you are correct.  I explained what I thought, and shared my sources, and you could, too.  If none of the sources you can find verifies your idea, are you open to the possibility that you might simply have been mistaken? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection for this page is expired. You can edit the page without administrator help. Please take care to work together to avoid future need for protection. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This page really needs to be on permanent semi-protection. These congregations are militantly autonomous, and their beliefs/practices reflect it. To quote Alan Canon: "Congregational autonomy means that multiple, independently evolving branches of the Churches of Christ might find a new thing to argue about, and then come to the same conclusion, in isolation, while still hating other branches of the movement who happen to agree with them on some particular meme, but who are nevertheless eternally bound to Hell because of some other, unrelated, point of doctrine." jonathon (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Permanent semi-protection is needed.  The comments and edits of the anonymous users above speak for themselves.  --Ichabod (talk)  01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

= CoC Doctrine/history = The problem is that the history of the church as a doctine is in conflict with the history of the church as, well, history. Which sort of puzzles me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * --of course it puzzles you. From every comment and edit you have made, it is obviuos that you do not understand the nature of the Churches of Christ.  That's why you have no business making the changes you continually make FisherQueen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.184.19 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FisherQueen's point is that CoC doctrine is discongruent with both the history of the specific movement, and that of Christianity as a whole. The earliest church that might be historically connected with the doctrine of the CoC dates to the tenth century --- and that is really stretching things, making a number of theological assumptions that probably are valid (For starters, the church architecture suggests that it utilized infant baptism. And yes, I know Campbell also practiced infant baptism, but that isn't a current doctrine of any of the CoC.) If you want to claim that Parthanian Christian doctrine was the same of that of the CoC, then you need to explain why the CoC rejects the doctrines defined in the Didache. (The evidence suggests that Parthanian Christianity not only knew of, but utilized the Didache.)jonathon (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Jonathan, if you look closely at your own comments, you will see that your idea of the Church of Christ is way off base also. Campbell practicing infant baptism is irrelevant because he had nothing to do with starting the Church of Christ (he came along about 1750 years later).  "Parthanian" doctrine also came later.  It matters not what is in the Didache, as that was merely the commentary of humans.  If you want to see the doctrine and beginning of the Church of Christ, you need only read your New Testament.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.68.225 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I brought up Campbell, specifically because his change on paedobaptism is an example of how CoC doctrine and practice change to more closely conform with NT teachings. The Didache was a tract given to converts, so that they would live their life according to the teachings of Christ. even if you don't want to give it canonical status, it does indicate what first century Christian practices and doctrines were. Since Parthanian Christianity can be documented to have existed as early as 40 CE, I guess it could be described as having come later. After all, that is thirty or so years before the Gospel of John was written. As far as "to know the doctrine ... you only need to read your New Testament" goes, the plain meaning of Matthew 16:18 is that Peter was the first Bishop, and all earthly authority is descended from him. The plain meaning of Mark 2:27 is a specific commandment to worship on the Sabbath, which is the seventh day. Neither of those teachings are part of CoC doctrine, yet those are the self-evident plain meanings of those verses, by the respective organizations.jonathon (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * wrong again Jonathan. You seem to have great Roman Catholic influence in your understanding of history and scripture.  Keep in mind that Roman Catholicism has only been around since circa 5th century and that they re-wrote history to fit their cult beliefs about their religious organization.    An objective reading of Matthew 16:18ff would show you that the "rock" does not refer to Peter but to the statement he made that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.  Peter (and the rest of the Apostles for that matter), who was married by the way (can't be pope, and he would have no idea what someone meant if one could go back in time and ask him if he was the pope) were only inspired to bind and loose as God moved them.  Regarding Mark 2:27, surely you don't mean what you typed.  A simple "rightly dividing of the word" (reading it in its proper context) should tell you that Jesus was speaking to Jews about the Jewish practice/understanding of the Sabbath during a time when the Old Covenant was still in effect (which ended with Christ's death & resurrection).  When the Church of Christ came into full existence (Acts 2 - about seven weeks after Christ resurrected), the seventh day was no longer relevant in the same sense it had been.  Of course, the first day (Acts 20:7) now had the special significance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.188 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is far more documentation that the Roman Catholic church has been around since AD 100, than the Church of Christ has been around since then. I'd even argue that there is far more evidence that Christianity first reached Japan before 100 AD, than there is that any organization practiced anything that can be construed as similar to current CoC theology prior to the Tenth Century. jonathon (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was using Matthew 16:18 and Mark 2:27 as examples of how that which is considered to be the plain meaning, differ radically between Christian denominations. Both organizations which use those verses as one of their key texts demonstrate why their interpretation is the best "plain understanding" of what the New Testament means. Furthermore, those verses demonstrate why you can't rely on reading the NT, to know what CoC doctrine is. (I'll also point out that there is the not so small issue of which books comprise the New Testament. Different branches of Christiandom have had/do have different books in their version of the New Testament. EpLao, 3Cor, Didache,to name just some of the books that mainstream CoC hasn't studied in their quest to know what Jesus taught.) jonathon (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)