Yep, I see it.... now go back to your boring and lengthy faux pas intellectual nothingness...
No, just drawing attention to the fact you're off-topic and trolling. Happens A LOT in this board.
You are on record making self-contradictory claims. You're on record abusing scripture. You're on record hijacking your brothers op, and apparently for the sole purpose of making someone look bad. Perhaps you weren't aware that's what you were given the opportunity to reveal about yourself.
I am not under any obligation to engage any of that beyond making it apparent, noting it for the fallacious act of the flesh it is, and then moving on. If my resolve in this matter is doubted simply examine how often brotherofJared is engaged. He was asked the exact same thing I'm asking you now and he's consistently shown an inability, not merely an unwillingness, to post op-relevantly with manners and respect. I encourage and exhort you not to be that guy.
Now, if you have anything op-relevant to post I'll read it and consider replying. Otherwise, I don't collaborate with what you're bringing to the thread.
This op first began in a completely different thread. It is the author's practice, his modus operandi, to constantly start new threads whenever discourse becomes difficulty for him. The verses cited in the op don't actually speak of a restoration of the Church like that being asserted in the op. The use of a translation that uses the word, "restitution
" is commendable because modern apocalyptic restorationist sects all got it wrong and none of them got their original predictions correct. Secular definitions should not be used if, when, and/or where they contradict with scripture. The Church, from its inception has always been a messy place and in need of reform, and that's one of the many ways where modern restorationists sects get their ecclesiology wrong. ALL of us should be cautious, if not skeptical and/or rejecting, of ANYONE who says the body of Christ is corrupt and they know how it should look. This is especially the case whenever and wherever their version does not comport consistently with the precedent established in the New Testament. I've evidenced all of this with scripture and the facts of history where applicable.
Shouldn't have to repeat any of it with someone interested in furthering the conversation topically.
You're also already on record refusing to answer the question, "What's the topic of this op?
If you've got something op-relevant to post, then do so. Otherwise, having said my piece about this op and seeing no one is interested in that
conversation, I'll be moving on.