>>13634196>I wonder if you're even capable of getting the point.You are the one who doesn't get the point. If the standard is the lack of an author's name, then the same charge can be levied at the Gospels.
Likewise, the defense of the Gospels - both Church tradition and modern scholarship concur in attributing to them their traditional authorship - applies to 1 Clement, where both Church tradition and modern scholarship agree that the author was indeed Clement.
>It was emphatically not the act of a pope over another bishop.It was the act of the bishop of Rome asserting his authority over faraway Corinth -- asserting his authority, and acting just like a Pope.
>Sure, you just declare your refutation to be falseWhat? The multiple authorship theory is dubious for the reasons stated -- it's pure speculation. I provided a link to a detailed articulation of the theory; any anon is free to read it and judge for themselves. Likewise, you're free to provide a link to a different article defending the same hypothesis, if you have one.
>Your propaganda only twists the scripture to your own destruction.I know the light of truth is painful to your eyes; it makes you shy away; you imagine even that it is somehow destructive. May your eyes one day be opened to see the truth.
>The papacy did not suddenly pop into being one day, it developed through many centuries.The papacy was established by Christ, as the scriptures make clear. And it achieved its substantial form with the actions of Clement in the first century, and by the second Irenaeus would say that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority." (Source:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)
How do you like them apples? :^)
