PAJC- THIEVES, LIARS, and HYPOCRITES

[Praxeas]

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)

What postings? Where? Who? Do you have some quotes?

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.

I can't dispute or confirm this because I have nothing to go on other than your insistence that it is "indisputable"

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.)

Who? When? Where? What? Who are the "revisionists"? What are they saying? Do you have citations? References? Quotes?

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.

As above, do you have more information for the rest of us who have no idea what you are talking about?

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

Same as before, citations please?

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 Don't see how what you believe changes your first assertion into merely being mistaken and not rather a bunch of thieves, liars and hypocrites. In fact if what you believe is true of the PCI and the merger this would be counted as evidence of your first assertion, given you can provide evidence that they are revisionists...whoever "they" are

[Praxeas]

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.

Except that he says they are revisionists...in other words they KNEW what MM said to be true and chose to revise history their way....confusing

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If you do not dispute the facts as being untrue then we have a summary judgment situation.

I didn't see any facts. I saw assertions. They become fact when there is corroborating evidence those assertions are true

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

It is undisputed that PCI had property and a headquarters and PAJC did not.

Nevertheless that is ONLY important IF one believes the PAJC lied.

Are the revisionists liars then or simply mistaken? If they are mistaken then are they really revisionists?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Except that he says they are revisionists...in other words they KNEW what MM said to be true and chose to revise history their way....confusing

No he said the new generation...He is saying if the revisionists are right with their claims then the first generation were liars, hypocrites, etc...but he doesn't believe the revisionists.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

No he said the new generation...He is saying if the revisionists are right with their claims then the first generation were liars, hypocrites, etc...but he doesn't believe the revisionists.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

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

The problem is that you are accusing some of certain things without proof. A "he said/she said" type thing. What's the legal name for that....heresay?

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

No he said the new generation...He is saying if the revisionists are right with their claims then the first generation were liars, hypocrites, etc...but he doesn't believe the revisionists.

Yes, but he clearly could be presenting these insinuations simply to plant the thought and then claim that he doesn't believe it. It's like me saying, "I've heard people talk about Baron being an alcoholic...but I don't believe it's true."

He's given the accusations credibility just by bringing it up. It's enough for people to say, "Hmmm......".

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The problem is that you are accusing some of certain things without proof. A "he said/she said" type thing. What's the legal name for that....heresay?

Hearsay. And there are approximately 27 exceptions to the hearsay rule, in federal rule alone. Or so I have been told

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The problem is that you are accusing some of certain things without proof. A "he said/she said" type thing. What's the legal name for that....heresay?

No, What he is saying is that if the revisionists are to be believed then the previous generation was no good.

The fact is the revisionists are not just saying things but writing them. The fact that something is said doesn't mean that it would be excluded by hearsay rules...far from it.