Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Murkwood]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. lol, I'm kidding. Everyone goes to Heaven. Just go to Church on Christmas and you'll be great.

Genesis 4:8
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and made him check his privilege.

John 3:4

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, cis scum, that was triggering. What about a father's womb? As a trans* African polysexual dragonkin, that's just offensive."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Let's assume in a hypothetical scenario that the words in the Bible were true. Of all the denominations of Christianity, are there any who would be the closest to the church/beliefs that the god in the Bible would desire his creations to hold?

Though I myself am an Atheist, I do believe that according to the Bible at least, the Roman Catholic Church can support it's claim as being the most legitimate Christian Church. Through Apostolic Succession, the bishops can be traced back to St. Peter.

Strictly speaking, this is more invested in the orthordox-catholic schism whereas one side affirmed the claim for apostolic primacy of Rome which would be the Orthordox position, and Rome demanding supremacy. Historically the effects of this still survive to this day, and I think in this case the patriarchy of Constantinople had a considerably more sound historical claim, but became increasingly irrelevant once the Ottomans gobbled up Constantinople and manipulated church affairs which stood also a great part on channeling Othordox authority to Moscow, whom had their own separate interests. Whereas the reformed generally, but not exclusively, stand content in treating the church as the body of believers rather than a sole, unified hierarchy which requires the patronage of a single earthly organization.

Though you won't find catholic theology to match up with the bible as they have dogmatically mis-defined themselves many times. You're not going to go through the bible, or even do contextual study, and conclude with a theology or historicity that lines up anything with the papacy. So unless you take them at their word which does not line up with scripture and holds, in my opinion, the weaker claim in the schism which largely, but not exclusively was caused by said side, then there is really no rationale other than a sense of a love for rigid hierarchies to go for them. Furthermore, with the Orthordox, they have their fair few issues as well both historically and presently. To a certain degree, while the schism still survives, if they were to reunify with Rome on their own terms meaning that the pope could be seen as the first among equals, and somehow indirectly affirm the rites of the catholic or perhaps latin church. Then they would be sanctioning extremely contrasting theologies. Especially if Rome affirms Mary to be the co-redemptress and mediator of Christ or 'value' the sexuality of LG''s of the LGBT, the latter which the pope himself coined and which through even the most basic study of contextual and historical sources will allow oneself to conclude as thoroughly unbiblical. Then again, even from the days of the holy fools, the Orthordox have had an entirely different mentality in regards to certain natures of theological disputes and seems rather taken by it's own hierarchy, which again, through a significant of it's history has suffered greatly from byzantine court intrigues, the seperation of the latin church and the affairs of the Ottoman empire.

Now, needless to say, the question you asked is rather loaded so I suspect people will be fond of cheering for the home crowd, but when it comes to priorities it generally depends on two areas of consideration. The theological with an emphasis on scripture, and the ecclesiastical with an emphasis on the church and what defines either A or THE church. On the former there is certainly an argument to be made for systematic theology which has, the last five centuries, particularly in the west, taken on an extraordinary investment in terms of the Theology, Soteirology, Christian anthropology, Christology, and perhaps to a lesser degree Eschatology. Resulting in a far more flexible, but far less uniformed debate on said matter. Now to be fair, the Roman catholics have been far, far more invested in creating a systematic theology out of their far less biblical claims than their orthordox counterparts, but stands again dwarfed by the general protestand/reformed counterparts. Though it should also be said, they did have a relative lul since the aftermath of the counter-reformation and have re-emerged more committed to said principle, but the general crux which I have at least observed in debates is that since they have to take certain papal dogmatic positions that sometimes contradict scripture, they stretch exceptionally far when determining such and as a result, generally gets hammered during cross-examinations. As a reformed person myself, as far as exegesis is concerned it is hard to over-state the contributions of John Calvin, though, I think the person of John Knox perhaps translated such knowledge more effectively, but I do think our theology will stand always-reforming which is a general tenement of the reformation, but s far as ecclesiastical is concerned, I do think any churches mirroring the early creeds faithfully, but also soberly which may indicate a separation should the mother fall into great error, have their t's crossed and their i's dotted so to speak as scripture itself seems, in particular when you have additions made from outside scriptures held as authoritative as scripture when they go against or even contradict scripture, seemingly through Paul's standard deserving anathema. I also do think ethics play into the picture. For example, I do not think Peter Waldo counts as a great theologian, but he was certainly a better person than the wast majority of church history or for that matter people in general. Taking the effort to learn greek, read the biblical manuscripts, saw that the church contradicted it, sold his riches, and lived on to preach as a poor man. Of course, he eventually after some debate got excommunicated by the catholic church who could not have their pomp and riches critiqued.

Prove to me the Bible is the Word of God.

[Wintanceastre]

So, recently I was studying the Venite, exultemus Domino and somehow came across the Taizé Community, which is an ecumenical monastic order. I was wondering what your opinions are on it? It seems like a really interesting community.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Genesis 4:8
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and made him check his privilege.

John 3:4

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, cis scum, that was triggering. What about a father's womb? As a trans* African polysexual dragonkin, that's just offensive."

Had a good chuckle at this one

[Herskerstad]

Strictly speaking, this is more invested in the orthordox-catholic schism whereas one side affirmed the claim for apostolic primacy of Rome which would be the Orthordox position, and Rome demanding supremacy. Historically the effects of this still survive to this day, and I think in this case the patriarchy of Constantinople had a considerably more sound historical claim, but became increasingly irrelevant once the Ottomans gobbled up Constantinople and manipulated church affairs which stood also a great part on channeling Othordox authority to Moscow, whom had their own separate interests. Whereas the reformed generally, but not exclusively, stand content in treating the church as the body of believers rather than a sole, unified hierarchy which requires the patronage of a single earthly organization.

Though you won't find catholic theology to match up with the bible as they have dogmatically mis-defined themselves many times. You're not going to go through the bible, or even do contextual study, and conclude with a theology or historicity that lines up anything with the papacy. So unless you take them at their word which does not line up with scripture and holds, in my opinion, the weaker claim in the schism which largely, but not exclusively was caused by said side, then there is really no rationale other than a sense of a love for rigid hierarchies to go for them. Furthermore, with the Orthordox, they have their fair few issues as well both historically and presently. To a certain degree, while the schism still survives, if they were to reunify with Rome on their own terms meaning that the pope could be seen as the first among equals, and somehow indirectly affirm the rites of the catholic or perhaps latin church. Then they would be sanctioning extremely contrasting theologies. Especially if Rome affirms Mary to be the co-redemptress and mediator of Christ or 'value' the sexuality of LG''s of the LGBT, the latter which the pope himself coined and which through even the most basic study of contextual and historical sources will allow oneself to conclude as thoroughly unbiblical. Then again, even from the days of the holy fools, the Orthordox have had an entirely different mentality in regards to certain natures of theological disputes and seems rather taken by it's own hierarchy, which again, through a significant of it's history has suffered greatly from byzantine court intrigues, the seperation of the latin church and the affairs of the Ottoman empire.

Now, needless to say, the question you asked is rather loaded so I suspect people will be fond of cheering for the home crowd, but when it comes to priorities it generally depends on two areas of consideration. The theological with an emphasis on scripture, and the ecclesiastical with an emphasis on the church and what defines either A or THE church. On the former there is certainly an argument to be made for systematic theology which has, the last five centuries, particularly in the west, taken on an extraordinary investment in terms of the Theology, Soteirology, Christian anthropology, Christology, and perhaps to a lesser degree Eschatology. Resulting in a far more flexible, but far less uniformed debate on said matter. Now to be fair, the Roman catholics have been far, far more invested in creating a systematic theology out of their far less biblical claims than their orthordox counterparts, but stands again dwarfed by the general protestand/reformed counterparts. Though it should also be said, they did have a relative lul since the aftermath of the counter-reformation and have re-emerged more committed to said principle, but the general crux which I have at least observed in debates is that since they have to take certain papal dogmatic positions that sometimes contradict scripture, they stretch exceptionally far when determining such and as a result, generally gets hammered during cross-examinations. As a reformed person myself, as far as exegesis is concerned it is hard to over-state the contributions of John Calvin, though, I think the person of John Knox perhaps translated such knowledge more effectively, but I do think our theology will stand always-reforming which is a general tenement of the reformation, but s far as ecclesiastical is concerned, I do think any churches mirroring the early creeds faithfully, but also soberly which may indicate a separation should the mother fall into great error, have their t's crossed and their i's dotted so to speak as scripture itself seems, in particular when you have additions made from outside scriptures held as authoritative as scripture when they go against or even contradict scripture, seemingly through Paul's standard deserving anathema. I also do think ethics play into the picture. For example, I do not think Peter Waldo counts as a great theologian, but he was certainly a better person than the wast majority of church history or for that matter people in general. Taking the effort to learn greek, read the biblical manuscripts, saw that the church contradicted it, sold his riches, and lived on to preach as a poor man. Of course, he eventually after some debate got excommunicated by the catholic church who could not have their pomp and riches critiqued.

Prove to me the Bible is the Word of God.

I cannot 'prove' the bible being inspired anymore than I could prove to someone that God exist, as God communicates to them through his gift of faith on more than merely his existence. If such is absent from you then the only advice I could grant is that you seek him with all your heart, mind and soul and if such would be beyond you, then it would be beyond me to give you any advice on said issue.

What would be far more relevant to such a question is the preservation and authority in scripture as such can be more easily demonstrated. Authority is simple as all scripture is considered God-breathed, thus pointing towards it's inspiration. The bible itself makes it clear that any additions or removals from said word will be a most grievous sin indeed. And this is where part of the disputes arise in preservation. Now, among that which we own there is not a part of the bible 'lost' so to speak, but there are several passages that come in dispute as being potential later additions. So it is rather like having 101% of than 99% where the additional 1% is in dispute that have not yet been conclusively proven one way or the other. Among the texts of scripture, there are of course also accepted cannon that is generally not preached despite being accepted as canon to the bible. Revelations being the most disputed, but generally accepted canon at least from my experience I've rarely seen preached both for the complexity and disputed context of said section. It's however important that one does not confuse preservation with transmission, as scribal errors in early biblical manuscripts are plentiful, but in due part to the extraordinary amount of said manuscripts and their location, dates and alterations we can reconstruct said scripture from among it's earliest roots, which is great and a strong testament to the integrity of said scriptures. Now, to be fair, there are other sayings of Christ which we would like to know as it is heavily implied in for example Luke 4:29 - 30 that Christ would have said something to get past said crowd, but such words have yet to be authentically proven. Had such words hypothetically been proven tomorrow, then it would certainly be inspired words as such would have been the words of Christ. Nevertheless, with this absence and the absence of many things we would have liked Christ to answer for us we find scripture if soberly studied to be sufficient as a guide for the regenerative person, for the person which has not recived the gift of faith from God it will likely seem 'moronic' as a quite literal translation. Which is why if we find that any church teaching or tradition which cannot be backed up in some way from scripture to be worthy of caution, and any tradition that contradicts it to be something eminently undesired.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Prove to me the Bible is the Word of God.

I cannot 'prove' the bible being inspired anymore than I could prove to someone that God exist, as God communicates to them through his gift of faith on more than merely his existence. If such is absent from you then the only advice I could grant is that you seek him with all your heart, mind and soul and if such would be beyond you, then it would be beyond me to give you any advice on said issue.

What would be far more relevant to such a question is the preservation and authority in scripture as such can be more easily demonstrated. Authority is simple as all scripture is considered God-breathed, thus pointing towards it's inspiration. The bible itself makes it clear that any additions or removals from said word will be a most grievous sin indeed. And this is where part of the disputes arise in preservation. Now, among that which we own there is not a part of the bible 'lost' so to speak, but there are several passages that come in dispute as being potential later additions. So it is rather like having 101% of than 99% where the additional 1% is in dispute that have not yet been conclusively proven one way or the other. Among the texts of scripture, there are of course also accepted cannon that is generally not preached despite being accepted as canon to the bible. Revelations being the most disputed, but generally accepted canon at least from my experience I've rarely seen preached both for the complexity and disputed context of said section. It's however important that one does not confuse preservation with transmission, as scribal errors in early biblical manuscripts are plentiful, but in due part to the extraordinary amount of said manuscripts and their location, dates and alterations we can reconstruct said scripture from among it's earliest roots, which is great and a strong testament to the integrity of said scriptures. Now, to be fair, there are other sayings of Christ which we would like to know as it is heavily implied in for example Luke 4:29 - 30 that Christ would have said something to get past said crowd, but such words have yet to be authentically proven. Had such words hypothetically been proven tomorrow, then it would certainly be inspired words as such would have been the words of Christ. Nevertheless, with this absence and the absence of many things we would have liked Christ to answer for us we find scripture if soberly studied to be sufficient as a guide for the regenerative person, for the person which has not recived the gift of faith from God it will likely seem 'moronic' as a quite literal translation. Which is why if we find that any church teaching or tradition which cannot be backed up in some way from scripture to be worthy of caution, and any tradition that contradicts it to be something eminently undesired.

Very nice way of dodging the question. Your answer is completely irrelevant to the inquiry. But I will address a few points...

Firstly, to address your earlier postings, I suggest you learn the semantical difference between non-biblical, and extra-biblical. These words are used far too interchangeably. For what you're describing, the former is egregious and insulting, while the second is universally understood academic and accurate vernacular.

Secondly ,the Bible does not make it clear that any additions or removals are a grievous sin. And indeed if we are to call it a sin, then Protestants are quite guilty as in the 19th century the Protestant sects removed 7 books form the accepted Biblical Cannon, and then the Mormons are doomed for adding an additional collection.

Lastly. You say its accepted that it's God breathed. But that begs the question of by who? That objectively says nothing. There is no proof or evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God.



It seems however you have missed the point. My question is not on the integrity or nature of the Bible, but rather on source validity. So I'll make the inquiry in a different way, and I pray you'll indulge me.

You claim the Bible is the Authoritative Word of God. The Qu'ran and the Bible are very similar books. Both make claims to be Inspired Word of God, both include factual and fantastical information, and Both are mutually exclusive. They can't both be true.

So, support the Claim that the Bible is the Word of God, over the Qu'ran.

[Mostrov]

Prove to me the Bible is the Word of God.

If it doesn't have some relationship with the divine, why have the Bible? The Church itself should sufficient for the establishment of ritual in the same manner that we don't regard Apocrypha as authoritative if it were the case. If there is no special status ascribed to the Bible why believe in Christ? That the Church holds it so? Why believe the Church?

As this isn't in the case, and that even Roman Catholics hold that the Bible is Divinely Inspired I fail too see why this is a matter of concern.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Prove to me the Bible is the Word of God.

If it doesn't have some relationship with the divine, why have the Bible? The Church itself should sufficient for the establishment of ritual in the same manner that we don't regard Apocrypha as authoritative if it were the case. If there is no special status ascribed to the Bible why believe in Christ? That the Church holds it so? Why believe the Church?

As this isn't in the case, and that even Roman Catholics hold that the Bible is Divinely Inspired I fail too see why this is a matter of concern.

None of this addresses the question. I'm asking why and you're trying to argue why not?

[Murkwood]

Just popping in here for a reading suggestion to all my Catholic comrades (as well as people who are interested Eschatology): Lord of the World is a great book. It even got Papal approval from Francis himself!

[Sun Wukong]

Just popping in here for a reading suggestion to all my Catholic comrades (as well as people who are interested Eschatology): Lord of the World is a great book. It even got Papal approval from Francis himself!

Does it support a geocentric universe?

One World to rule them all
One World to find them
One World to bring them all
And in the Vacuum bind them.

[Mostrov]

If it doesn't have some relationship with the divine, why have the Bible? The Church itself should sufficient for the establishment of ritual in the same manner that we don't regard Apocrypha as authoritative if it were the case. If there is no special status ascribed to the Bible why believe in Christ? That the Church holds it so? Why believe the Church?

As this isn't in the case, and that even Roman Catholics hold that the Bible is Divinely Inspired I fail too see why this is a matter of concern.

None of this addresses the question. I'm asking why and you're trying to argue why not?

I was merely pointing out the consequences of it not being so. Arguing Catholic Dogma against a Catholic seems pointless to me, given that it was explicitly stated in the Dei Verbum.

The question is not that Bible is authoritative or whether it is divinely inspired, but whether it is the sole source of authority.

[Coulee Croche]

None of this addresses the question. I'm asking why and you're trying to argue why not?

The question is not that Bible is authoritative or whether it is divinely inspired, but whether it is the sole source of authority.

His question makes sense. In order for it to be "sole source of authority" it would have to be divinely inspired. The only reason why we believe its divinly inspired is because of an outside authority. The bible does not authenticate itself nor does proclaim to be divinely inspired. It is through outside authority that claims it to be what it is.

In other words this outside authority that is very much not in the bible, has to be equal to the authority of the bible to make it authorative or even divinly inspired.

[Mostrov]

The question is not that Bible is authoritative or whether it is divinely inspired, but whether it is the sole source of authority.

His question makes sense. In order for it to be "sole source of authority" it would have to be divinely inspired. The only reason why we believe its divinly inspired is because of an outside authority. The bible does not authenticate itself nor does proclaim to be divinely inspired. It is through outside authority that claims it to be what it is.

In other words this outside authority that is very much not in the bible, has to be equal to the authority of the bible to make it authorative or even divinly inspired.

Yet we regard the Old Testament as divinely inspired despite a lack of Church to declare it so. If you are claiming that the Bible has no authority save that given by the Church, then why claim the Bible has any authority at all given that it is the Churches Authority that grants it any significance?

EDIT: I should clarify that this doesn't imply that without the Church the Bible can be interpreted, merely that it has authority on its own behalf.

[Coulee Croche]

Yet we regard the Old Testament as divinely inspired despite a lack of Church to declare it so.

The Jews my friend.

If you are claiming that the Bible has no authority save that given by the Church, then why claim the Bible has any authority at all given that it is the Churches Authority that grants it any significance?

No, the Bible needs Tradition, and Tradition needs the Bible. They have equal authority. As Tradition proves the Bible that we know today, the Bible confirms Tradition. This is what i am saying. Tradition confirms the authority of the Bible and it being divinely inspired. Tradition authenticates the Bible, otherwise youd probably have the Gospel of Mary and the like in your bible. Considering how the bible neither claims to be sole authoritive nor does it give you a list of Canon.

[Coulee Croche]

merely that it has authority on its own behalf.

Oh well yes, it does have its own authority. I was arguing rather that something proves this authority. That something ouside of itself proves it to be inspired. That which compiled it.

[The Alexanderians]

Yet we regard the Old Testament as divinely inspired despite a lack of Church to declare it so.

The Jews my friend.

More like

My one pic of the night I promise

[Busen]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you fully understand how serious an issue this is for the Orthodox; there's a general tendency among Catholics to be far, far too optimistic about finding a compromise here. The Pope's self-proclaimed right to infallibly codify dogma on behalf of the entire Church is something we simply can't accept.

Well, according to the Bible Jesus personally gave the first Pope the right to codify dogmas. But hey maybe the Bible is forged or something like that.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Or maybe you will claim that St. Peter was not the Pope at all? Or that the said Church was that based in Antioch and not in Rome?

If we managed to achieve Catholic-Orthodox unity, the resulting unified Church would have two very different major Rites - the Latin Rite and the Byzantine Rite - as well as a number of smaller minor Rites (left over from the non-Byzantine Eastern Catholics, and from the Oriental Churches, which have presumably already reunited with the Orthodox Church long before the point in time we are talking about).

There is already the Greek Catholic Church that has full autonomy within the Catholic Church. From the Catholic point of view nothing stands aside for unification since it is tolerant enough to accept different rites. But the Orthodox Church does not want because it dont want to lose its priveleges.

[Mostrov]

Yet we regard the Old Testament as divinely inspired despite a lack of Church to declare it so.

The Jews my friend.

If you are claiming that the Bible has no authority save that given by the Church, then why claim the Bible has any authority at all given that it is the Churches Authority that grants it any significance?

No, the Bible needs Tradition, and Tradition needs the Bible. They have equal authority. As Tradition proves the Bible that we know today, the Bible confirms Tradition. This is what i am saying. Tradition confirms the authority of the Bible and it being divinely inspired. Tradition authenticates the Bible, otherwise youd probably have the Gospel of Mary and the like in your bible. Considering how the bible neither claims to be sole authoritive nor does it give you a list of Canon.

This is what I was pretty much arguing.

I just mainly took objection to what I saw as perceived subordinate relationship, which has very disturbing implications.
I also take objection that isn't divinely inspired without a pronouncement of the Church, as this I find has equally disturbing implications. Rather the Church confirms its divine inspiration.

I think I must have come across as a Sola Scriptualist. Also that I like to argue with Counterexample rather than explicit refutation, which is dependent on the reader.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you fully understand how serious an issue this is for the Orthodox; there's a general tendency among Catholics to be far, far too optimistic about finding a compromise here. The Pope's self-proclaimed right to infallibly codify dogma on behalf of the entire Church is something we simply can't accept.

Well, according to the Bible Jesus personally gave the first Pope the right to codify dogmas. But hey maybe the Bible is forged or something like that.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Or maybe you will claim that St. Peter was not the Pope at all? Or that the said Church was that based in Antioch and not in Rome?

Selective cherry-picking of my posts to facilitate rhetorical strawman grandstanding is hardly likely to impress me.

My thoughts on the development of monarchical episcopacy and the apostolic succession in early Christianity are outlined in other posts in this thread. If you want to know what I actually think, a quick search for 'Clement' and/or 'Ignatius' should point you in the right direction.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Well, according to the Bible Jesus personally gave the first Pope the right to codify dogmas. But hey maybe the Bible is forged or something like that.



Or maybe you will claim that St. Peter was not the Pope at all? Or that the said Church was that based in Antioch and not in Rome?

Selective cherry-picking of my posts to facilitate rhetorical strawman grandstanding is hardly likely to impress me.

My thoughts on the development of monarchical episcopacy and the apostolic succession in early Christianity are outlined in other posts in this thread. If you want to know what I actually think, a quick search for 'Clement' and/or 'Ignatius' should point you in the right direction.

i may be missing context, but i think it comes off as lazy on your part to just tell someone to look up something on their own to figure out about it.

people certainly act that way when I do it.
so why not you?

[Luminesa]

Selective cherry-picking of my posts to facilitate rhetorical strawman grandstanding is hardly likely to impress me.

My thoughts on the development of monarchical episcopacy and the apostolic succession in early Christianity are outlined in other posts in this thread. If you want to know what I actually think, a quick search for 'Clement' and/or 'Ignatius' should point you in the right direction.

i may be missing context, but i think it comes off as lazy on your part to just tell someone to look up something on their own to figure out about it.

people certainly act that way when I do it.
so why not you?

Don't think he's being lazy. I think he's just trying to help him.

Arch isn't necessarily the lazy type, I don't think. He and Constantinopolis wouldn't write really long articles about this subject if they didn't know what they are talking about.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

i may be missing context, but i think it comes off as lazy on your part to just tell someone to look up something on their own to figure out about it.

people certainly act that way when I do it.
so why not you?

Don't think he's being lazy. I think he's just trying to help him.

Arch isn't necessarily the lazy type, I don't think. He and Constantinopolis wouldn't write really long articles about this subject if they didn't know what they are talking about.

i'm just saying it may come off as lazy.
whenever I say "go look this up" i get the snarky "well why don't you do it right now so i don't have to waste MY time doing YOUR work?"
so i assume most people get that way when people say "go look this up"

[Murkwood]

The Jews my friend.

More like

My one pic of the night I promise

Pharaoh be like:

[The Archregimancy]

Selective cherry-picking of my posts to facilitate rhetorical strawman grandstanding is hardly likely to impress me.

My thoughts on the development of monarchical episcopacy and the apostolic succession in early Christianity are outlined in other posts in this thread. If you want to know what I actually think, a quick search for 'Clement' and/or 'Ignatius' should point you in the right direction.

i may be missing context, but i think it comes off as lazy on your part to just tell someone to look up something on their own to figure out about it.

people certainly act that way when I do it.
so why not you?

Because when I invite someone to look up one of my own posts, they tend to be reasonably long, well-researched, and clearly written, and likely contain at least some details of interest to the individual concerned.

Whereas you typically write short, badly researched and poorly written posts that aren't really worth wasting anyone's time with.

Well, you asked....

[Murkwood]

i may be missing context, but i think it comes off as lazy on your part to just tell someone to look up something on their own to figure out about it.

people certainly act that way when I do it.
so why not you?

Because when I invite someone to look up one of my own posts, they tend to be reasonably long, well-researched, and clearly written, and likely contain at least some details of interest to the individual concerned.

Whereas you typically write short, badly researched and poorly written posts that aren't really worth wasting anyone's time with.

Well, you asked....

Oh, go Saint Nick on his Arius ass!