The details of this court case were also published in the newspapers. You can also click on the links below for other relevant information.
History:
The above links
are just a brief summary of some of the posts dealing with the OAC history.
There are other posts on this blog too, please feel free to browse around.
John 3:16-21 For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not
his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him
might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come
into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds
were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to
the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to
the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Eight pages from out of a much larger document. As can be seen, this is a SETTLEMENT and not a COURT CASE. The case was settled out of court and only proved that in accordance of the Articles of Association that the Chief Apostle had no authority over the church under control of Klibbe. The only effect it had was that the church founded in 1894 and registered in 1910 in accordance with the Transvaal Companies Act as a Non-Profit Religious Organisation as The New Apostolic Church (Africa) changed its name to The Old Apostolic Church of Africa.
ReplyDeleteA quesion should be asked; Could you prove your claims from the Bible?
Klibbe was legally sued by the New Apostolic Church (Germany) over the custody of financial shares and church assets. The plaintiffs, “apostle” Schlaphoff and “priest” Kreunen of the New Apostolic Church in South Africa successfully secured a SETTLEMENT in the landmark COURT CASE of December 1926 in the SUPREME COURT of the Witwatersrand. The records and supporting documentation relating to the court case of 1926 are in the public domain.
DeleteA question should be asked; have you read all my other posts properly?
The Articles of Association of the New Apostolic Church (Africa) stated: Art 18. stated that the management of all affairs spiritual and temporal are vested in the Apostle of Africa (CG Klibbe) and that said Klibbe had the right to veto or ammend any decision made in the church by any person or meeting. No part in this document gave any authority to the Chief Apostle or any other branch of the New Apostolic Church. Art 19 gave Apostle Klibbe the authority to appoint or dismiss any person from office in the church without having to explain his actions to any person. The same document gave no recognition to the office of Chief Apostle and only recognised the office of Apostle, Bishop, Elder, Priest, Deacon and Underdeacon. The German church or the Chief Apostle had no authority to interfere in the church and Schlaphoff gave recognition to that fact and the Settlement stated in art 1 that the church in Africa under Klibbe did in 1915 severe all contact with the German church and declared independance. In art 2 of the Settlement it is stated that the Chief Apostle, Hermann Niehaus and Schlapphoff recognise that the church under Klibbe that was registered in 1910 and declared its independance in 1915 is in fact an independant church and not subject to the authority of the Chief Apostle. The only legitemate effect the settlement had wat that the church under Klibbe disbanded the right of the use of the name "New Apostolic Church (Africa)" and therefore the church changed its name to "The Old Apostolic Church of Africa", so that it can place Schlaphoff in the position to register his church as "New Apostolic Church".
ReplyDeleteMy advice ot you is take this to a lawyer so that he can explain it to you if you still do not understand it. A settlement is an agreement between two parties and it is judged given legal standing by a judge. Nobody loses in a settlement. No property was lost or transfered and no authority was lost in the Old Apostolic Church.
Heading on page 1 = IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
DeleteSub heading on page 1 = WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION
Plaintiff = a person who brings a case against another in a court of law.
Defendant = an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.
There’s no denying that there was a court case after Klibbe broke all connections with the New Apostolic Church and thereby abandoned the right to the use of the name New Apostolic Church. The terms of the settlement are an Order of Court. If this was merely an agreement between two parties, the Supreme Court of South Africa wouldn’t have got involved and the parties would not be called plaintiffs and defendants.
The following will give a clear understanding what a settlement is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)
ReplyDeleteIn law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after COURT action begins.
DeleteI suggest you take this document to a lawyer so that someone who knows about such things can explain it to you. Clearly you do not have the background to understand these matters.
DeleteThat’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. If you want to deny that there ever was a court case despite all the evidence, I won’t waste time arguing with you.
DeleteDEPOT TAB
ReplyDeleteSOURCE WLD
TYPE LEER
VOLUME_NO 0
SYSTEM 01
REFERENCE 800/1928
PART 1
DESCRIPTION OPPOSED APPLICATION. CARL GEORGE KLIBBE VERSUS CHRISTIAAN HENDRIK
KREUNEN.
STARTING 19280000
ENDING 19280000
Follow up case where Kreunen breached the Settlement of 1926.
See also: http://www.oldapostolicforum.co.za/legal.html
DeleteBy the way, you're quick to say "straw man", but here you're referring to an application from 1928 whereas this post is about the case from 1926 (two years earlier).
DeleteBack to the straw man.
ReplyDeleteA statement without an explanation sounds more like denial to me :-). Don’t worry, I understand, I went through the same thing when I was an active member in the OAC. It is my sincere hope that the truth will set you free.
DeleteThe term "straw man" needs no explanation, as it explains itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man You are creating a false image of the OAC, and then you attack the false image. The Straw Man argument is a logical falacy commonly used within so-called "Christian churches" to win converts.
ReplyDeleteYour application of the “straw man” requires explanation. Explain how I’m creating a false image of the OAC. I deleted your other comment, by posting a link to an atheist website reveals where your heart really is. I’m not interested in promoting your atheistic ideas on this blog. Rather use relevant verses from the Bible if you want to prove how damaging I am.
DeleteYou answered my question. Thanks. Now I know you. The Game is on!
ReplyDeleteYeah sure, just up the R357 from you. Come on over and let’s play. Maybe we can go fishing together on the banks of the Vaal River? Maybe we can meet for a coffee at the Wimpy in Douglas or go for a game drive at Mokala National Park? Any suggestions Mr Ellis?
DeleteThink you are lost. Who is Mr Ellis? Some poor innocent guy is really going to be confused and angered when you harass him. But go ahead. Go bother Mr Ellis from Douglas. Lets see how that turns out.
DeletePlease ‘Anonymous’, let’s keep the comments relevant to the topic of the post. Thank you.
Delete