Reply to Dávid Száraz ( 

Btw kudos to you pronouncing my name correctly! Since you reject the middle recension of Ignatius because some scholar says so. Would you reject Daniel being the author of the book of Daniel? The scholarly consensus is it was written arround 165 BC. Would you also reject the majority of Isaiah, since scholars agree that the middle and last part are deutero- and tritto- Isaiah and were not written by Isaiah. Would you reject the parts of Ezra which were written in the third person and not the first person. Also Ezra was partly written in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew, clearly wasn't written by one person. Would you reject 2 Peter because scholars agree the author is not the same as for 1 Peter. Would you reject many of the NT books due to the lack of attestation in the early church and even being explicitly rejected by some? And I could go on and on. So I was wondering if on scholarly and historical ground you reject Ignatius, why don't you apply the same criteria to the scriptures. At the end of the day, no one has the authority to tell you what has to be in your Bible. But if you chose to apply certain criteria on one thing, I would expect you being consistent and use the same approach to decide what is scripture and what isn't. Just a thought.

Thank you Dr. Nemes. During the weekend I don't have the time to go through the material again and re-check Clement, etc. But a few quick questions: 1. Have you read Bernard's article? It seems to me weird you say he is wrong. 2. Why do you reject the middle recension of Igantius? What particular thing convinced you that its not genuine? The majority of scholars I would say affirm its genuine. You are in a minority. 3. I still think your example with the husband and wife and the reasurer is wrong. Ignatius mentions in 2 different letters that the presbyter is subject to the bishop and then that without him you cannot do nothing, i.e. not capable of doing nothing.

Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18. The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on. Peter’s confession is the rock. And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.

There are a few problems with your argumentation. Apostles are not those who followed Yeshu before his crucifixion, rather they are those who had post crucifixion visions. Error's 1) you seem to be under the impression that the gospels were written prior to 70. Even under the most conservative view however there would have been a 20 year span without the gospels. 2) It is fallacious to argue that because elders in local communities were able to elect a bishop that those bishops did not require confirmation and induction by another bishop. 3) It is fallacious to conflate bishops and priests in first clement. All bishops are priests but there is no reason to assume that all priests are bishops. You cannot just assert all priests were also bishops but you must make that argument (I do think there is an argument here). 4) The eschatological argument doesn't hold. Regardless of when they thought Yeshu would return there would have been a need for a practical minimum structure and approved bishops. Work your way through the hypothetical. You are an apostle and are establishing churches in an area, the gospels are not written yet. You are only going to be at this new church for a few weeks or months before setting off to establish another church. We can assume it existed prior to paul, but even paul acknowledges splintering factions so safeguards would have been in place to prevent this as much as possible simply from a practical perspective. The existences of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church suggests that the structure is early. On a personal note I do not think any bishop can actually trace their lineage back to the early church. That said the structure does go back.