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.
Ever play Three Card Monty? Ever watch Tag Team Wrestling?
It's argument by attrition.