Hi AA. It puzzles me that you regard extensive writing as a defense mechanism for getting “caught” promoting an anti-Apostolic doctrine. A book is a tome, is it not? And you are writing one, are you not? In which you will no doubt attempt to explain many things which are not obvious to a “naïve” reader of the Biblical text (our exchange over “priest” versus elder” comes to mind). Are you writing your book because you feel you’ve been “caught” promoting anti-Apostolic doctrine?
For my part, I enjoy reading Daniel’s “Tomes,” and I am glad he has the time, energy, and resources to put them together. I have benefited from them immensely. If you would take the time to read them and interact with the substantial arguments he presents, you might find it useful to moving the discussion forward, as opposed to engaging in trivial, ankle-biting rhetoric that does not serve any useful purpose that I can see.
And if anyone can be accused to writing tomes (and run-on sentences) it is Rome.
(our exchange over “priest” versus elder” comes to mind).
Indeed. Somehow the fact that the Holy Spirit not once titles them “hiereus” or “archiereus” or describes them engaging in any unique sacrificially function carries no real weight in comparison with the Catholic etymological fallacy based on imposed functional equivalence.
take the time to read them and interact with the substantial arguments he presents, ,
Oh that has been engaged in, exhibiting such unreasonable bound-to-defend Rome responses that i suspected the RC was trying to waste our time, and or gaining time off purgatory. Which i still suspected may be behind the goading. Thus the unworthy-to-respond to list.
Generally, there is room for discussing the scripture or the history of the Church at some length, or write books that elevate the spirituality. On hand however we have a simple fact that the Apostle wrote a definitive sentence and then Luther wrote a negation of it and Luther thinks he could get away with it. Great many people then went with Luther and abandoned the Apostle. Why? They cannot explain it plainly. There is always obfuscation of the content of the second part of James 2. Obfuscation cannot be succinct; it is the first sign of someone obfuscating that he takes time to explain. On an obscure verse I can understand the need for lengthy exegesis; on the plain “X is not by Y alone” there should be no need for any.