Yep, but in a debate like this, I will not concede.
When one concedes or even grows tired of continuing the defense, it is used against the Church.
I do not care if one chooses to ignore or reject the clear teachings and history of Christ’s church.
I do care if someone not well versed in the truth should be led astray by misinformation and calumny against Truth.
No, no conceding.
Just making a point here. If, for example, one wished to ‘prove’ certain specifics about Christ but refused to accept Scriptural accounts as sources, most of the information is lost on them.
Similarly, if someone wishes information about key aspects of Church history, but rejects Church history as sources, same thing. The Church was about the only source that cared or kept track, remove that, and it’s like trying to know about Christ without the Scriptures.
If someone takes that position, they really don’t want to know. And we shouldn’t play the game beyond what has already been done; cite the history.
Those who have an honest inquiry can explore these. Those that don’t will always come up with yet another specious line. Anything to denigrate the Church and anything to avoid examination of their own church’s history and teaching.
thanks for your posts.