You wrote:
“The Gemera, Josephus, Seneca, Tacticus, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, and many others... All are not credible? Their silence on the matter of the highly structured Papist faith speaks volumes.”
No, it doesn’t. If you look, you’ll see more than you might think. Pliny, for instance, makes reference to deaconesses and apparently to the sacrament of the altar (without realizing it). Many people today forget that Acts itself speaks of bishops (Apostles), presbyters (priests) and deacons. That in itself implies a highly structured church on the episcopal level. Also, Pliny makes clear that even after more than 70 years the Romans still did not understand what Christianity was about, who was involved or how it worked on the ground (maybe “underground” should be the word used there). Christians were often secretive. The Romans couldn’t write about what they didn’t know.
No, it doesn’t. If you look, you’ll see more than you might think. Pliny, for instance, makes reference to deaconesses and apparently to the sacrament of the altar (without realizing it).
Deacons are the least offensive office between factions - Everyone accepts that the office of deacon is Biblically valid, and that office is largely the same all the way across.
I would take exception to the idea that Pliny refers " apparently to the sacrament of the altar (without realizing it)." The reference is vague, stating only that after a service, the Christians would depart and go somewhere else to eat together. It could just as easily defend the long custom in many families of going out to breakfast at a diner after Sunday service.
Medieval Sourcebook: Pliny on the Christians
Many people today forget that Acts itself speaks of bishops (Apostles), presbyters (priests) and deacons. That in itself implies a highly structured church on the episcopal level.
No, Acts describes bishops (head elder), presbyters (elders), and deacons. Elders are a fairly normal construct in both Greek and more importantly, Hebrew communities, and do not speak to an ornate hierarchy, but to a simple one.
Also, Pliny makes clear that even after more than 70 years the Romans still did not understand what Christianity was about, who was involved or how it worked on the ground (maybe “underground” should be the word used there). Christians were often secretive. The Romans couldn’t write about what they didn’t know.
I find that to lean more toward my position - A rigid hierarchy would be easy to detect and destroy, while a simple structure is more fluid, and hard to define.
And the fact that Rome didn't understand also points away from an ornate hierarchical structure - something which was very common in Roman religions of every type. That priests are not mentioned is odd, especially from a Roman perspective, see? .