PAJC- THIEVES, LIARS, and HYPOCRITES

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

PAJC- Thieves, Liars, and Hypocrites

Unfortunately, there is no other conclusion based on the postings of PAJC progeny and their revisionist leaders/historians. (Including UPC leaders, Bible school teachers, and even some GIBs)

It is indisputable that the PCI was better organized and funded at the time of the merger. They even had headquarters, offices, and the like, whereas the PAJC did not.

According to the revisionists, the PAJC leaders felt from the beginning that the PCI’s theology was in error and they were lost. Furthermore, the unity clause was merely to give them time to come around to PAJC way of thinking or the time would come would come when they would be expelled. (Or excreted depending on which Westburg-ite was speaking.)

It then follows, they were liars. They did not truly believe the unity clause.

They were thieves, it was their intent to get their hands on the PCI’s property and later expel them.

They were hypocrites of the worst sort. To their face they told the PCI brethren that they were just that- brothers in Christ, but really believed them to be lost and hell bound. Perhaps even worse, as they were preachers leading others astray.

Revisionists also claim their forefathers made a mistake, the merger never should have happened, and the heretics never should have been let in.

On the other hand, if you believe like I do, that the merger was sincere; that they believed the PCI were brethren; that it was not as important whether baptism in Jesus’ name was because sins had been remitted or whether it was done to remit sins, as much as the fact both taught baptism in Jesus’ name as a commandment. Then the revisionists are mistaken and the PAJC was not a bunch of thieves, liars, and hypocrites after all.

.

[Baron1710]

I have yet to see a challenge to any of the facts presented.

"Your honor everything he says is true I don't dispute any of the facts...I just disagree with his conclusion."

In that case lets consider the facts and see if the conclusion is correct or else dispute the facts...but don't just jump up and down and say prove it...

We wouldn't use standards from a criminal trial for a case like this it would be the rules for civil procedure.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Ok well, I don't agree. But I've never seen a case presented without evidence, or at least, something presented as evidence.

What don't you agree about?

Be specific.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

What do you challenge as being untrue Prax?

Baron, what do you assert is true? I'm simply asking for support of the assertions. Would you want someone on your jury that doesn't care about evidence but is swayed by emotional arguments?

I don't even know what the author of that post is referring to. TO me the post is nonsensical without some sort of context like a quote, reference or whatever...What people specifically? Where? When? What?

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I have yet to see a challenge to any of the facts presented.

"Your honor everything he says is true I don't dispute any of the facts...I just disagree with his conclusion."

In that case lets consider the facts and see if the conclusion is correct or else dispute the facts...but don't just jump up and down and say prove it...

We wouldn't use standards from a criminal trial for a case like this it would be the rules for civil procedure.

Ok, here's one. I was present at the merger and was a part of the PAJC. That was not my intention nor was it the intention of anyone in my group.

Now we have two stories. Which one is correct?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Sounded like an opening statement to me.
Laying out the facts.

If the facts are not in dispute no proof is necessary.

What facts did you see? I saw assertions. If I said "Baron has a foot fetish" would you say that is a fact or an assertion?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Baron, what do you assert is true? I'm simply asking for support of the assertions. Would you want someone on your jury that doesn't care about evidence but is swayed by emotional arguments?

I don't even know what the author of that post is referring to. TO me the post is nonsensical without some sort of context like a quote, reference or whatever...What people specifically? Where? When? What?

Catch up on your reading Prax then we can talk.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

On the other hand, if you believe like I do, that the merger was sincere; that they believed the PCI were brethren; that it was not as important whether baptism in Jesus’ name was because sins had been remitted or whether it was done to remit sins, as much as the fact both taught baptism in Jesus’ name as a commandment. Then the revisionists are mistaken and the PAJC was not a bunch of thieves, liars, and hypocrites after all.

I took this to be MM's point. IF the above is not true, and they didn't believe that the one-steppers truly were saved and their brethren, then they must have been liars and hypocrites.

But MM believes that they did believe the one-steppers were saved.... therefore they weren't liars and hypocrites.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I took this to be MM's point. IF the above is not true, and they didn't believe that the one-steppers truly were saved and their brethren, then they must have been liars and hypocrites.

But MM believes that they did believe the one-steppers were saved.... therefore they weren't liars and hypocrites.

The story that I often hear told is that the PCIers eventually just all disappeared and there remain none.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I took this to be MM's point. IF the above is not true, and they didn't believe that the one-steppers truly were saved and their brethren, then they must have been liars and hypocrites.

But MM believes that they did believe the one-steppers were saved.... therefore they weren't liars and hypocrites.

At last, someone with the ability to read the whole post without jumping off the deep end first.