Search results

My understanding is based on a two year study of the NTC and reading 40 books on the subject.

Not that I am aware of. I just told the truth.

No. I was not aware that I was creating a precedent or rule. or to put it another way. I have not created a precedent or rule.

​So I take it that you have NOT done an indepth study of the NTC.

I did not expand on the verses as most of them were self explanatory. if you cannot see this you need to back off and do some study of the subject. I note that you have not apologised for saying that Elders were not leaders in the NTC when the verses clearly show they were.

​In your previous post you said it was 88 times. And saying I didn't study the apostles in the gospels is contradicting nothing as I didn't.

I don't have to prove anything to you, especially as you have got so cynical.

For the reasons I have stated.

​But you said if it is not in scripture you are not interested? So which is it? In scripture so it is OK or not in scripture so it is OK as long as I am comfortable with it?

It's an analogy, because God is NOT foolish in anyway. Anyone who thinks so doesn't know God at all. Not according to scripture but I guess that is your POV.

​"Sanctimonious claptrap." More pejorative language Stan. Is that the best you can do?

​What you are unable to grasp is that I had no opinion at all about leadership of the NTC until I did a two year study of the subject which included reading over 40 books on the subject. And I didn't say to myself whilst I was doing it "I will have to make a list of all the books I read as...

​And who decides what is the majority view? You? Using that methodology we would have to accept that being addressed as Reverend, Canon, Right Reverend, Rector, Priest, Coadjutor, Curate, Dean, Lay Canon, Metropolitan, Prebendary, Precentor, Primate, Provost, Vicar, Suffragan Bishop are backed...

What errors are you referring to? Making wild generalizations add nothing to the discussion.

Which ones are you referring to?

I am not sure that you are convinced about your arguments as your tendency to descend into shouting would suggest otherwise.

Your first comment I have no idea what you are eluding to. I do not base my view of women on one verse. ​I don't understand abstracts as in "this" I didn't make it an abstract type of wage.

I wasn't aware that I was trying to form a precedent or rule.

I would cite a few but I don't think that it would achieve anything. Your cynical attitude to my studies is very obvious so it would only give you another opportunity to rubbish my work and study.