The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[malkie]

It might be argued that the Jesus of many "believers" is every bit as much of a "made up Jesus", when you look at their attitudes and actions.

There are many Jesus believers that do believe different things about Him. Their attitudes and actions do vary.

Regards,
MG

Did the rest of my post make sense to you? I was responding specifically to something that seemed to be puzzling you, by providing an explanation and motivation. Was it worth my time to write that? Are you less puzzled now than you were before? Or did I (and PseudoPaul) not tell you anything you didn't already know?

[Limnor]

I see what he wrote. I am interested in having him respond to what I posted. Please don’t throw in a monkey wrench to dissuade him from doing so. I think the points I’ve brought up deserve an answer.

Feel free to respond to the substance of what I posted without derailing. I think that trying to answer everything I’ve put in my original post to Physics Guy puts someone between a rock and a hard place, nonetheless, I would be interested in a lucid and logical response without a ‘side move’.

Regards,
MG

Exhibit A of the script.

Edited to add: This approach doesn’t result in building trust, MG, as you admitted that you are intentionally trying to put PG in a bind.

[Res Ipsa]

I see what he wrote. I am interested in having him respond to what I posted. Please don’t throw in a monkey wrench to dissuade him from doing so. I think the points I’ve brought up deserve an answer.

Feel free to respond to the substance of what I posted without derailing. I think that trying to answer everything I’ve put in my original post to Physics Guy puts someone between a rock and a hard place, nonetheless, I would be interested in a lucid and logical response without a ‘side move’.

Regards,
MG

Exhibit A of the script.

I saw neither rock nor hard place.

[Limnor]

Exhibit A of the script.

I saw neither rock nor hard place.

It’s the approach—the “rock” and “hard place” approach, whether or not we perceive them as such—reflect a “stratagem” that I find distasteful.

[MG 2.0]

What do/would you see as a logical scenario of events within the confines/reality of the world as it was anciently (and how it had evolved/developed) and as the world is now in which the true Church of Jesus Christ (assuming that there might be one) would be anything more/different than what it is (assuming that the CofJCofLDS is God's church/organization) ?

Human minds cannot or at least should not be forced. History cannot be rewritten, cultures and societies developed independently from one another. Evolutionary factors are of course natural and expected.

Agency reigns supreme.

Where, when, and how would you expect that the true church of Jesus Christ would be bigger than it is? Again, on the hypothetical that the Mormon missionaries are teaching the truth.

Regards,
MG

Your argument here is internally contradictory. On the one hand, you seem to treat all past events as if they must have happened exactly the way they did. On the other, you claim that Agency reigns supreme, meaning the course of history is contingent, not necessary. If agency reigns supreme, then history since the first century could have had a near infinite number of outcomes, contingent on how people exercised their agency.

I hear what you're saying. There does appear to be a contradiction. But maybe there's not.

The agency that has been exercised in the past that leads to future conditions may be associated with many people independently arriving at similar outcomes affected by environmental conditions. Some of those outcomes are more likely than others. Agency is individual but it flows within certain constraints /channels shaped by the environment. Choices made by those that came earlier impact choices made...in the main...by future generations of individuals within groups/cultures.

More or less, like I've said, an evolutionary process. And it happens naturally unless acted upon by an outside force.

If God knew what the emergent patterns were going to show as a result, He might be able to plan for the future...a known future for Him...even though natural determinism dictated the past.

I've said earlier that I believe that the original 'church' of Christ was what resulted from the 'seed' which resulted from the fact that Jesus Christ walked the earth and did what He did. The Catholic Church and its mutations, including the Protestant Reformation, resulted in an 'emergent pattern' that God may have been able to statistically predict from known factors and human predilections for behavior and choice.

So, when I'm asking about the size of the church and whether or not that "matters"...I think that it doesn't. It's the natural outgrowth of what has come before. Size shouldn't be a factor, as Physics Guy seems to be saying, as to whether or not the CofJCofLDS is true or not.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Let’s recap: A dilemma is proposed as a question framed as if only one “logical” conclusion exists: “If Christ is alive, wouldn’t His true church bear His name and spread globally?”

This is followed by rhetorical hypotheticals until no simple answer fits without conceding the previously mentioned premise.

Finally, an absurd solution is offered: The LDS Church’s limited size is itself proof of truth (“Why would you expect the True Church to be larger?”).

Marcus has said MG is a troll—my own view is he is conducting his own theatrical self-confirming performance.

The goal isn’t to persuade others but to reinforce self-belief. It’s a script designed to let the performer feel vindicated regardless of the audience’s response.

[MG 2.0]

I see what he wrote. I am interested in having him respond to what I posted. Please don’t throw in a monkey wrench to dissuade him from doing so. I think the points I’ve brought up deserve an answer.

Feel free to respond to the substance of what I posted without derailing. I think that trying to answer everything I’ve put in my original post to Physics Guy puts someone between a rock and a hard place, nonetheless, I would be interested in a lucid and logical response without a ‘side move’.

Regards,
MG

Exhibit A of the script.

Edited to add: This approach doesn’t result in building trust, MG, as you admitted that you are intentionally trying to put PG in a bind.

He's smarter than I am. I'm actually interested in whether he can untangle the knot. My reply to Res Ipsa adds some extra 'meat'.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Exhibit A of the script.

Edited to add: This approach doesn’t result in building trust, MG, as you admitted that you are intentionally trying to put PG in a bind.

He's smarter than I am. I'm actually interested in whether he can untangle the knot. My reply to Res Ipsa adds some extra 'meat'.

Regards,
MG

Fair enough.

If he presents a solution that is reasonable will you abandon previously held assertions?

[MG 2.0]

He's smarter than I am. I'm actually interested in whether he can untangle the knot. My reply to Res Ipsa adds some extra 'meat'.

Regards,
MG

Fair enough.

If he presents a solution that is reasonable will you abandon previously held assertions?

I'd love to hear his response that covers the basis/bases of what I've presented to him (I think it explains reality 'on the ground') along with my reply to ResIpsa.

Limnor, I do not profess to be any smarter than anyone else. On the contrary, I know my limitations. That's why I'm always interested in what others have to say as long as it's civil without personal insults that lead off in directions that are a waste of time.

I'm always open to learning as I would hope others are also.

Regards,
MG

[bill4long]

"If Christ is alive, wouldn’t His true church bear His name and spread globally?"

Just FYI: In the New Testament, while Jesus does make mention of "my church" (Mat 16:18), the New Testament books never mention a "Church of Christ" or "Church of Jesus" by name or description. All references to church/churches that contain the possessive "of" are followed by "God", that is, "the church[es] of God."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1

Moreover, "churches" (plural) appears 35 times in the New Testament.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1

Given how the Greek word is ekklesia (assembly/congregation) that was used in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible to refer to a physical gathering of people, this makes sense. The modern English sense of "church" as either a building or organization does not equate to what ekklesia connotes. The "Assemblies of God" name/description that is used by the sect that bares that name hits the mark.