@SKracket @ai @Shadowman311 @TalmudTranslator @sapphire @skylar BY THE WAY -- NOT A FAN OF THIS LINE OF THOUGHT OF STRIPPING HISTORICAL CONTEXT FROM STUFF
IT IS WEASELY AND DISHONEST BECAUSE THINGS EXIST IN CONTEXT
OLDER CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS WERE MORE INTELLECTUALLY RIGOROUS
THIS WHOLE "YUP, WE AGREE, THERE WAS NO PAPAL SUPREMACY IN THE PAST, ITS A DEMONSTRABLE FACT, BUT WE STILL ARGUE FOR IT BECAUSE ITS THE CURRENT DOCTRINE" IS WIMPY AND ITS AN AFFRONT TO TRUTH
ID RATHER THEM FALSIFY DOCUMENTS AND STUFF AND TRY TO PROVE PAPAL INFALLIBILITY IN THE SECOND CENTURY AND ONWARDS

AND THIS GOES FOR THIS WHOLE THREAD FROM THE POINT WHERE I BUTT IN REALLY
LIKE, ID RATHER YOU BE ZEALOUSLY WRONG AND MISLED INSTEAD OF GOING "OOOOOHHH WELL DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS" RELATIVIST
WHICH IS WHY I HAVE MORE RESPECT FOR GUYS LIKE @branman65 THAN I DO FOR REVEREND DOCTOR DAVID BENTLEY HART JR OR OTHER MODERN ACADEMIC THEOLOGIANS