You do understand context do you not? Do you honestly really think that in responding to the assertion that "the Church that brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation" then i, who am well aware book of Romans, was thinking of and referring to the church at Rome? Do you???
I understand the context of bigotry, especially when Catholics try to reconcile themselves to abandoning their baptism and the faith in which they were raised. Raging continually against the church in Rome, the church at Rome, and anyone they regard as connected to the same seems to me a poor excuse for a pure and undefined religion to me.
Moreover, "church of Rome" is a common handle for the RCC, due to the historical location of its headquarters, and even its affinity with the nature of imperial Rome. And to be precise, in Scripture no church is ever named as being the church of a city, but are said to be the church of the people who dwell there (as in "church of the Thessalonians").
The church is the people, in, of, or at a real visible addressable location. It is catholic because those people are in communion with each other in faith and doctrine as passed on generation after generation by the Jewish Apostles, either verbally or by epistle. There was a church in Rome at the time of the New Testament,and it was already honorable and famous among all the catholic churches.
Exactly: I did not say a church at Rome did not exist, but in context , that the church of Rome to which the poster was referring to did not exist in Scripture. Why is it that you cannot or refuse to comprehend that?
I understand the context of bigotry,
And now, having been shown your were wrong, you must resort to the ad hominem assertion of bigotry, whole it is you who evidence that you are habitually obstinately unreasonably committed to your fallacious charge that i was referring to a church in Scripture as nonexistent, when the context makes it clear it was the RCC?
Raging continually against
"Raging continually? " Ever read your own numerous one-sided rants against Luther and the Jews, ignoring Rome's own history concerning the same? Bigotry anyone?
The church is the people, in, of, or at a real visible addressable location. ...There was a church in Rome at the time of the New Testament,and it was already honorable and famous among all the catholic churches.
None of which makes my reference to the church of Rome, "the Church that [it is claimed] brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation," into being the church at Rome in Scripture. Which did not even know English, and to which Paul wrote nothing of popes, priests, purgatory, prayers to saints in Heaven, etc.
And of which one tradition says was "written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea." (Romans 16:27)
You could have attempted to argue that the the "the Church that [it is claimed] brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation" to which i referred, the church at Rome were one and the same, but that was not your contention, but instead you ignored the context of my use of "church of Rome," and that what that most always means here, and engaged in an ill-advised attempt to correct me as if (incredibly) i was ignorant of the fact that there was a book written to the church in the city of Rome!
Why do you refuse to admit you were wrong?