[Iscool]

Who, looking at an acorn, would know that it had an oak in it? And acorn bears little resemblance to an oak after all.

Not so...The oak tree produces more little acorns...Your oak tree grows bananas...Thanks God, there are still oak trees that produce acorns...

[Mad Dawg]

Okay. What is this. IS it impossible or against the tenets of Protestantism to follow up on an argument?

AN argument was made that the Catholic Church cannot be "the" Church because it looks so different from the primitive Church.

My response was not intended to address every possible argument against my side's self-concept. It was intended to address one and only one particular argument.

My argument was, expressed in a comparison, that the fact of apparent change over a couple of millenia is no argument of essential change.

In response if have gotten two, "But there was TOO an essential change."

I KNOW you think that. That's why we're here doing this.

Am I to understand in the restatement without further support of one of your side's basic contentions that you all acknowledge that the argument from change of appearance is bankrupt? I certainly have seen no defense of it.

Your side brought up the appearance argument. Your side seems to be abandoning it.

[MarkBsnr]

***Not so...The oak tree produces more little acorns...Your oak tree grows bananas...Thanks God, there are still oak trees that produce acorns...***

And there are those of us who follow the instructions of Jesus rather than forming our own churches and our own theologies. How’s the Church of Iscool (population 1) coming along?