Protesting Protestantism

[Hoshiyya]

Because you are not comprehending that this is how we determine things in history or in court, etc. We find evidence.

The Zapruter film is evidence of the JFK shooting...even for those of us who were not there.

The testimony of eye-witnesses is used to establish who shot first in a police-demonstrator confrontation.

The BIBLE itself is evidence of Christ's teachings.

There are many witnesses to an ordination. They can tell others that, yes, this man was really ordained by that other man we know to be honest and (in the early days) to have been taught by one of the Apostles himself, so we know for sure that he is not mixing up his facts, etc. There's no question about it. We saw his hands on the candidate's head.

Look.

This is so simple.

A man, a stranger I've never before seen, comes to me and makes a CLAIM that he has hands laid on him.
1) How do I verify that claim is true, short of travelling in my time machine ?

2) And even if he tells the truth, so what ? Even if he did have hands laid on him by some other guy (guy 2), so what ? Maybe guy 1 is not a liar, but maybe guy 2 is.

Now you decided to change the subject and say that:
"The BIBLE itself is evidence of Christ's teachings."

Which is completely unrelated to the cognitive point I am making specifically about laying on of hands.

 

[Albion]

Look.
0
This is so simple.

I agree, and I keep wondering what you're missing.

A man, a stranger I've never before seen, comes to me and makes a CLAIM that he has hands laid on him.
1) How do I verify that, short of travelling in my time machine ?

Witnesses. Witnesses to an act that shows unmistakable intent.

Your hypothetical pastor has nothing like that to assure the congregation that he's on the up and up and probably has the right background.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I agree, and I keep wondering what you're missing.


Witnesses.

What witnesses ?

How do I contact them ?
One guy just comes and tells me a story.
He didn't bring witnesses with him, and even if he did, so what ?

Joseph Smith has witnesses willing to swear that they saw the Angel Moroni give the Golden Tablets to ol' Jo.

And here's another cognitive point you missed:

Maybe the stranger (Guy 1)who comes to my remote mountain village is sincere. We cannot verify he had hands laid on him by anyone, but hey, maybe he had hands laid on him by Guy 2.
But so what ?
Guy 2 is long gone and dead. How do I verify Guy 2 had hands laid on him ? Or futher back, Guy 3 ?

 

[Hoshiyya]

"Your hypothetical pastor has nothing like that to assure the congregation that he's on the up and up and probably has the right background."

My hypothetical what now ?

Look. A guy's teachings either line up with the Bible, to whatever extent, or they don't.

 

[Albion]

What witnesses ?

The people who saw the laying on of hands. There would almost always be many.

Joseph Smith has witnesses willing to swear that they saw the Angel Moroni give the Golden Tablets to ol' Jo.

Three--all of whom left the church. With normal ordinations in typical churches, you get a church full of witnesses, and not all of them are cronies of the man being ordained. That's the difference between slim and questionable evidence and good evidence. But you aren't interested in having any evidence at all!

Just take the guy's word for it, right?

 

[Albion]

"Your hypothetical pastor has nothing like that to assure the congregation that he's on the up and up and probably has the right background."

My hypothetical what now ?

Look. A guy's teachings either line up with the Bible, to whatever extent, or they don't.

So what's your beef with a laying on of hands?

 

[Hoshiyya]

The people who saw the laying on of hands. There would almost always be many.


Three. With normal ordinations in typical churches, you get a church full of witnesses, and not all of them are cronies of the man being ordained.

But your point is that no one need witnesses at all. Just take the guy's word for it, right?

"Just take the guy's word for it, right?"

I am making the exact opposite points.

Truth Trumps Title.

Just teach the truth, and you won't have to rely on your titles and unverifiable claims to succession.

"The people who saw the laying on of hands"

And where are they ?
The guy claims to have truth because he has hands laid on him. That makes no sense to me.
Because EVEN if - and I keep having to repeat these simple points - even if he had hands laid on him, what does that mean ?

So you just put yourself in a position of having to prove everyone in your succession-line is really "in the right", an impossible task.

 

[Hoshiyya]

So what's your beef with a laying on of hands?

Like I said at least twice, I simply don't think it is PROOF of having truth.

 

[Albion]

"Just take the guy's word for it, right?"

I am making the exact opposite points.

No, you're not. You are saying that if his story, his sermon, sounds right to you, it is. And of course, he's going to do all the baptisms and conduct all the worship services as well. You figure he was actually ordained somewhere...and by someone who wasn't a cultist or a mail-order minister, because why?

You can do that, of course, but most people want to have some reason for thinking the pastor is qualified.

 

[Albion]

Like I said at least twice, I simply don't think it is PROOF of having truth.

But having NO PROOF or even evidence that it's likely is your choice instead. Wonderful.

 

[Hoshiyya]

But having NO PROOF or even evidence that it's likely is your choice instead. Wonderful.

A man's word either lines up with the Bible, or it doesn't.

If a man has a million hands laid on his head, and there is a million witnesses, but his word doesn't match the word of the Bible, what good are the hands, and what good are the witnesses ?

Telling me a story that you had someone "lay hands" on you, even if the story is true, doesn't have any merit as proof or evidence.

 

[Hoshiyya]

No, you're not. You are saying that if his story, his sermon, sounds right to you, it is. And of course, he's going to do all the baptisms and conduct all the worship services as well. You figure he was actually ordained somewhere...and by someone who wasn't a cultist or a mail-order minister, because why?

You can do that, of course, but most people want to have some reason for thinking the pastor is qualified.

You are telling me what my own point is.

What absolute chutzpah.

THIS is my point:
If a man comes and tells me his story, his "testimony" and his claims to miracles and laying hands and whatever and whatnot, what does that matter to me ?
Either his teachings fit with what I believe the Bible teaches, or they don't.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

to "line up with the bible" means to fit in with a person's imagination of how the bible correlates with present day creation, odds are the theology of Jesus will not "line up" with many people's bibles. A higher standard has been given us, those with ears to hear, hear .. those with eyes to see, see.

 

[interpreter]

To be safe, I was baptized by a Nazarene minister in a Baptist Church, and confirmed by an Episcopalian bishop descended from St. Peter.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

To be safe, I was baptized by a Nazarene minister in a Baptist Church, and confirmed by an Episcopalian bishop descended from St. Peter.

I hope the Holy Spirit was in attendance