Reading Fudge's Book Again

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Exactly do you think Tek's teaching is Oneness as you teach it? I alsothought of this scenario this morning, BD ...

would you like Teks writings to be included with UPCI teaching?

This is what I mean when I say that including the teachings of some of the past witnesses you have provided would mean that you have tacitly accepted their teaching to represent yours.

No, I would not want Tek's teaching included with ours, but you have to understand that he was indeed one who associated with us at one time. And if history did indeed associate the entire oneness movement of today with Tek's writings, then they would come to a less that accurate conclusion as to what we believe. And I perceive that is what has happened with many "oneness" movements in the past. Their detractors (the trinitarians), have "preserved" the writings of that segment that are obviously non-representative of the movement as a whole, and then broad-brush paint the entire movement as associated with that spurious segment. And in my mind such were the Albigenses and cathari, the Paulicians, Bogamils, and so forth and so on. I do see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

No, I would not want Tek's teaching included with ours, but you have to understand that he was indeed one who associated with us at one time. And if history did indeed associate the entire oneness movement of today with Tek's writings, then they would come to a less that accurate conclusion as to what we believe. And I perceive that is what has happened with many "oneness" movements in the past. Their detractors (the trinitarians), have "preserved" the writings of that segment that are obviously non-representative of the movement as a whole, and then broad-brush paint the entire movement as associated with that spurious segment. And in my mind such were the Albigenses and cathari, the Paulicians, Bogamils, and so forth and so on. I do see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying0?

I see what you are suggesting but it is also an admission that you have no data to support your claims of an OP Church in every generation... only speculation and theories.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I see what you are suggesting but it is also an admission that you have no data to support your claims of an OP Church in every generation... only speculation and theories.

I think it's more than just speculation and theories, it's based on logical analysis of what we do know, real data that we do have, and principles of histoical analysis superimposed onto the "declared" history itself. I would concur that there are less that adequate specific "data" that suggests what is being proposed by men such as Chalfant and Weisser, but their approach is substantiated by more than speculation and theories, there is a logical and analytical approach that supports their conclusions.

By the way, can you post that link to the Cathari and Abligensian works?[/

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I noticed TB is quoted quite often in the book were y'all friends?

SE, I did not know Tom Fudge at all prior to him contacting me for an interview. He knew that I had left the UPCI in 1997 and at that time was going through some major battles with them. He also knew we had been missionaries with the UPC, District FM Director and District Board member, so I suppose he felt that my perspective would be meaningful in some way. It wasn't a good time to interview me because of the circumstances of the moment. My perspective on a lot of things was, to say the least, somewhat distorted by what I was going through at that time. One benefit of having spent 3 years here in BC is the opportunity to gain a better perspective on what happened during that turbulent period of our lives.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

No, I would not want Tek's teaching included with ours, but you have to understand that he was indeed one who associated with us at one time. And if history did indeed associate the entire oneness movement of today with Tek's writings, then they would come to a less that accurate conclusion as to what we believe. And I perceive that is what has happened with many "oneness" movements in the past. Their detractors (the trinitarians), have "preserved" the writings of that segment that are obviously non-representative of the movement as a whole, and then broad-brush paint the entire movement as associated with that spurious segment. And in my mind such were the Albigenses and cathari, the Paulicians, Bogamils, and so forth and so on. I do see what you are saying, but do you see what I am saying?

doesn't that really just mean that you'd like to believe this so you are going to think it whether there is any factual evidence of it or not??

Why even name groups if this is how youa re going to claim oneness survived through the centuries??? There is no reason to name any group as "they were oneness" because you don't actually need any proof you can just say "BUT WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS CHANGED BY THE EVIL CATHOLICS!!" over and over and over again... and you end up claiming everyone was actually oneness...

[Mischief Maker]

I like peanut butter fudge the best, what about you?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

doesn't that really just mean that you'd like to believe this so you are going to think it whether there is any factual evidence of it or not??

Why even name groups if this is how youa re going to claim oneness survived through the centuries??? There is no reason to name any group as "they were oneness" because you don't actually need any proof you can just say "BUT WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS CHANGED BY THE EVIL CATHOLICS!!" over and over and over again... and you end up claiming everyone was actually oneness...

It is very plausible to suggest that what many groups believed has been misrepresented in historical writings. For instance, most encyclopedic references to the Paulicians regard them as "dualist Manicheans". Even though their own statement of faith, the "Key of Truth", suggests nothing of dualism or Manicheanism. Suggesting the Paulicians were Manicheanists is even more absurd considering they anathematized Mani and his doctrine.

Basically I am taking an analytical approach. I am not disregarding the historical data, simply putting that data into proper context and perspective rather than embracing the traditional declared "history". For instance, in 1441, the Roman Catholic church convened the Council of Florence. It's premise was to discuss and denounce the "Sabellian" teachings prevailent at their day. Now consider that Sabellius first started teaching his form of Monarchianism around 200AD. This was 1200 years later that there were still "Sabellians". (BTW, I have absolutely no problem with Sabellius' ideas about modalism and the monarchy of God, and the real humanity AND deity of Jesus Christ). Taking this data and extrapolating the implications, we see that throughout the dark ages, for 1200 years, the Roman Catholic's fought the theology of Sabellius. This is extremely notable. I do not have to appeal to the Cathari, Abligenses, Bogamils, etc. to prove my point.

The history, the uncorrupted data that is, speaks for itself. Although the Roman Catholic version of that history differs from Chalfant's and Weisser's and my own. Who is to suggest that the Roman Catholic version of history is "more authoritative" than either of these scholars, or anyone else who comes to a different conclusion. Again, the historical data speaks for itself. Simply alalyzing the data from an alternate presupposition resulting in a different conclusion does not make that conclusion any less valid than what is traditionally held and promoted. The problem is the predominant presupposition in modern christocentric history is that the primative ante-nicene church, was trinitarian. This presupposition is absolutley unsubstantiable, thus the false conclusions of the Roman Catholic system and history and modern ecclesiastical histories.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Mischief Maker

I like peanut butter fudge the best, what about you?

I like peanut butter fudge! I also like people who don't "fudge" it in any flavor!

[Barb]

I need to do this hurriedly, but first, thank you to Adino and pelathais for your time and efforts, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to this.

I will say again that even without proof, I am of the firm conviction that the Church has always prevailed with a remnant through every period of time.

If I may, I will quote from Bro. MMA's Introduction in Apostolic History Outline, and follow it with a question.

"Heavily documented, this reliable and understandable outline depicts ancient and modern functions of the Jerusalem (Acts 2) Church. Christ’s Church of Matt. 16:18 never died. It was always alive and never ceased to be doctrinally and spiritually intact for all people in all ages…

We have not used suppositional material. We certify that the facts -- dates, figures and quotes are accurate…

The quotes used in this outline are from the most credible of historians -- Heick, Harnack, hogben, Knox, Hayes, Schaff, Langer, Verduin, Bernstein, Geen, Blunt, and many others.”

Are you saying that everything the elder wrote above was not accurate?!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

...

Basically I am taking an analytical approach. I am not disregarding the historical data, simply putting that data into proper context and perspective rather than embracing the traditional declared "history". For instance, in 1441, the Roman Catholic church convened the Council of Florence. It's premise was to discuss and denounce the "Sabellian" teachings prevailent at their day. Now consider that Sabellius first started teaching his form of Monarchianism around 200AD. This was 1200 years later that there were still "Sabellians". (BTW, I have absolutely no problem with Sabellius' ideas about modalism and the monarchy of God, and the real humanity AND deity of Jesus Christ). Taking this data and extrapolating the implications, we see that throughout the dark ages, for 1200 years, the Roman Catholic's fought the theology of Sabellius. This is extremely notable. I do not have to appeal to the Cathari, Abligenses, Bogamils, etc. to prove my point.

Where do you find the information on Sabellianism and the Council of Florence? The Council of Florence was one of those last gasp attempts to unify the Byzantines with the West before the Turks completely overran them. They may have "denounced" various "heresies" in order to get on the same page, so to speak. But I can't find any refrences specifically to "Sabellianism" and the Council of Florence- and I started with exclusively secular and even anti-Catholic sources.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

The history, the uncorrupted data that is, speaks for itself. Although the Roman Catholic version of that history differs from Chalfant's and Weisser's and my own. Who is to suggest that the Roman Catholic version of history is "more authoritative" than either of these scholars, or anyone else who comes to a different conclusion. Again, the historical data speaks for itself. Simply alalyzing the data from an alternate presupposition resulting in a different conclusion does not make that conclusion any less valid than what is traditionally held and promoted. The problem is the predominant presupposition in modern christocentric history is that the primative ante-nicene church, was trinitarian. This presupposition is absolutley unsubstantiable, thus the false conclusions of the Roman Catholic system and history and modern ecclesiastical histories.

Yes, I agree about the pre-Nicea church. Bart Erhman has done alot to show the "diversity" of the early church recently though he seems to have been one of those almost promoting the cause of the dualists and Gnostics. (I'd still recommend his books, just don't get caught up in the Gnosticism that seems to be having something of a revival lately.) Erhman was raised as a Baptist fundamentalist and began his academic career from that mindset.

Consider too that most histories produced in the West since the Age of Enlightenment were in fact anti-Catholic in their bias. From Gibbon to Schaff to Will Durant; most of the popular treatments are in fact anti-Catholic and were written to condemn the RCC. Durant, a U.U., found a little more balance. Gibbon blames the "Old Catholic Church" for the fall of Rome. Schaff believes RCC to be almost, if not anti-Christ in nature. None of them found a OP thread throughout church history.