And I have said that I’m not writing you a theological position paper, and that citing the fact that a number of scholars agree with the importance of “church absent after chapter 4” is sufficient for an online discussion. You are also, obviously, aware of some theology, so you don’t really need me to do that for you.
So, we’re back again to your backward acceding to the point.
“And I have said that I’m not writing you a theological position paper, and that citing the fact that a number of scholars agree with the importance of “church absent after chapter 4” is sufficient for an online discussion.”
Sufficient how? You tried to use that as evidence that the argument held validity, which is fallacious. Fallacious argument doesn’t suddenly become sufficient if the venue changes.
“So, we’re back again to your backward acceding to the point.”
Again, I’m not acceding what you seem to think I’m acceding. I’m acceding that the argument, even if it could be hypothetically valid, would still be a fallacious form of argument, and therefore not reasonable. So, if you want to trumpet my “accession” that the argument can’t be reasonable, well I guess that is your prerogative.