I understand the inspiration concept, but I don't understand how to consider a quote if it's inspired from God [then we consider it God's Words], or if it explanations by the the apostle or prophet? Is there any verse in the Bible says that the whole Bible is inspired, and not absolute-human-talk?

**Summary of the question**: How can the "angel of the Lord" be the pre-incarnate Jesus if Hebrews 1:5 makes the point that God never said "Thou art my Son" to *any angel*? Those who believe Michael the archangel is Jesus (JW, SDA, and others) usually get Hebrews 1:5 quoted by those who don't share their belief about Michael in an effort to disprove their belief. But what about those who believe the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus? Doesn't the same verse disprove that belief? This is a fairly widely accepted stance, in my opinion. We even have the following question with good answers on this very site: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89609/on-what-basis-do-some-protestants-believe-the-angel-of-the-lord-is-the-pre-incar However, some groups like Jehovah's Witnesses (due to the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel) have to respond to questions like this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78168/dont-the-questions-of-hebrews-15-and-113-demand-an-answer-of-none-so-how-c **How would a Protestant who believes the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus (or any Christian who believes this) respond to a very similar question?** If one believes that the angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Jesus, how can that be reconciled with Hebrews 1:5 (KJV): > For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? I've heard some explain this by saying that the angel of the Lord was not a created angel so that excludes him from the context of "the angels" in this passage. However, the verse doesn't say, "For unto which of the *created* angels said he at any time"... Of course, the basic meaning of "angel" in both the Hebrew and Greek is "messenger". But that doesn't really change the meaning of the passage either. I'm curious how this could be answered satisfactorily.

Which biblical texts are directed to a gentile audience?

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named *[A Stronger Faith](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/)* which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) on John 17:3: > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. **People kind of get on our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God**. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy affirms that some Christians reject the idea of seeking experiences with God because they view such experiences as mere emotional pursuits. Emotions, in that view, are often understood as neurochemical highs, products of the flesh, and therefore something to be avoided, being contrary to the things of the Spirit. But this seems to assume, arguably incorrectly, that all emotions arise from the flesh, as if no emotions could come from the Spirit. It denies the possibility of genuinely *spiritual* emotions or affections. Yet Galatians 5:22 says: *“But **the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace**, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”* The first three fruits listed, **love, joy, and peace**, arguably involve emotions. So, do Christians hold a more nuanced view of the nature of emotions? Do they believe that all emotions are of the flesh, or do they recognize the existence of spiritual emotions or affections? More broadly, do Christians acknowledge different categories of emotion or experience, such as physical experiences and spiritual ones? If God can produce authentic spiritual affections or emotions, would it then follow that pursuing them is a good and worthwhile thing?

## Short version I'm specifically referring to [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) 's paper [An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism](https://philarchive.org/rec/OPPAAF) : > **Abstract** This paper outlines an argument for atheism from naturalism that I have developed in more detail elsewhere (in particular, in *The Best Argument against God*). The overall shape of the argument is as follows: first, naturalism is simpler than theism; second, there is no data that naturalism does not explain at least as well as theism; and, third, naturalism entails atheism; so we have good reason to prefer atheism to theism. Note that this statement of the shape of the argument is NOT a statement of the argument itself. In short, Oppy argues that *naturalism is simpler than theism*, and that, all else being equal, we should always rationally prefer a simpler explanation of the data. How do Christians rebut Graham Oppy's position? ## Longer version A few relevant quotes from the [paper](https://philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf) : > Theists differ in the ways that they depart from naturalism. Some theists believe in a God who created our universe ex nihilo. Some theists believe in a God whose actions preserve our universe in existence. Some theists believe in a God who inhabits an eternal realm that has no spatiotemporal relation to our universe. Some theists believe in an intelligent and active God who is neither a natural organism nor an artificial intelligence created by natural organisms. Some theists believe in a God that is a non-personal supernatural power or supernatural force that exerts influence on our universe. Some theists believe that the universe possesses the non-natural property of being divine, or that the non-natural property of being divine ‘permeates’ the universe. And so on. > > **Although theists differ in the ways in which they depart from naturalism, there is a common feature** **to theistic departures from naturalism. In every case, theists differ from naturalists by believing in** **something additional**: either believing in one or more additional intelligent agents, or believing in one or more additional forces or powers, or believing in one or more additional non-natural properties of the universe. > > > Suppose that we are comparing a particular version of theism with a particular version of naturalism. Suppose, further, that these versions of theism and naturalism agree in their beliefs about which natural entities, and natural powers, and natural forces, and natural properties, and natural laws there are. In this case, it’s not just that the theist has beliefs in something over and above the things the atheist believes in; it’s also the case that the naturalist does not have beliefs in anything over and above the things the theist believes in. **From the standpoint of the naturalist, the theistic beliefs** **of the theist are pure addition; and, from the standpoint of the theist, the naturalistic beliefs of the** **naturalist are pure subtraction**. > > **In this case, if all else is no better than equal, then there is clear reason to prefer naturalism to** **theism. For, if all else is no better than equal, then there is no reason to have the additional theistic beliefs**. Hence, in this case, in order to decide between theism and naturalism, we just need to determine whether all else is no better than equal. ... > **The burden of the rest of this chapter is to argue that there are no features of the natural universe** **that have a better explanation on theism than they do on naturalism**. Of course, I won’t be able to examine every feature of the natural universe that might be thought to have a better explanation on theism than it does on naturalism. However, I shall try to examine all of the most prominent features of the natural universe that have been widely supposed to have a better explanation on theism than on naturalism. Given the treatment of the cases that I do discuss, it should be obvious how to extend the discussion to features of the natural universe that I do not examine here. He then goes on to explain how 8 features of the world commonly used to argue for theism can be better accounted for under naturalism. Namely: - Existence - Causation - Fine-Tuning - Morality - Consciousness - Miracles - Religious Experiences - Meaning and Purpose > 9\. **Conclusion** > As I mentioned at the outset, I cannot claim to have considered all of the data that bears on the decision between theism and naturalism (and not can I claim to have given a fully adequate assessment of any of the data that I have considered). However, I hope that I have done enough to indicate how my argument for naturalism would look if it were set out in full and complete detail. (I give a fuller—but still incomplete—exposition of the argument in The Best Argument against God, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013.) > > 10\. **Note about Evil** > Of course, there is data that at least some theists suppose favours naturalism over theism—e.g. data about horrendous suffering, data about non-belief, and data about the scale of our universe. Some naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering is logically inconsistent with theism. As Epicurus argued long ago: >> Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? > > Other naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering renders theism highly improbable: given the major horrors of the twentieth century alone, isn’t it incredible to suppose that our universe is the work of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being? I have focussed on data that many theists suppose favour theism over naturalism because my argument requires only that, on any piece of data, naturalism does at least as well as theism in explaining that data. Even if it is true, for example, that naturalism affords a better explanation of horrendous suffering in our universe than is given by theism, that truth makes no contribution to the argument that I have been advancing here. --- **NOTE**: Graham Oppy's formulation of the argument is arguably one of the strongest available in the literature, given Oppy's reputation as one of the most respected contemporary atheist philosophers. For instance, William Lane Craig once said about Oppy's book *Arguing about Gods*: > Oppy's book is not merely recommended but essential reading for anyone interested in natural theology today. No one can pretend to a successful theistic argument unless he has dealt with Oppy's criticisms first. ([source](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/arguing-successfully-about-god-a-review-essay-of-graham-oppys-arguing-about)) However, the claim that naturalism is "simpler" than theism is thrown around quite frequently in informal discussions with atheists. For example, take a look at some of the answers to [Could Occam's Razor ever favor theism?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110026/66156) .

[Thomas More](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) , whose birthday it is today (7 February), was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology. In his *Answer to a poisoned book* (1533), a reply to a [Zwinglian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Huldrych_Zwingli#Eucharist) tract probably written by [George Joye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Joye) , he wrote: > I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables, declare you the very literal sense of those words, "My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink": so that that ye may see thereby that our saviour verily spake and meant, not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker saith he only meant, but also the very bodily eating and drinking of his very flesh and blood indeed. 1 The basic dispute [depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0) , in the words of institution, and in other passages like the one quoted ([John 6:55](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55&version=NRSVACE)) . Zwingli and Joye thought it meant "signifies". More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood, "This is my body" admits a literal reading, unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he "is" a vine, a door, and so on. He says that although there are also symbolic meanings, a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words. Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from "is". At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find *some* plain reading if at all possible - count as a "literal" argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases? 1. [*The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord*](http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/1557Workes/Answer_poysoned_booke1.pdf) , 1.3. In *The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge* (London, 1557), p1042. Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: [Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ](https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/jehovah-s-witnesses-view-of-christ/) . John 5:18 states, > For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill > Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was > calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 8:59, > Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid > Himself, and went out of the temple. John 10:31, > The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him. John 10:33, > The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God. Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation: > The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;" What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death? Related question asked here

It is believed by radical unitarians, Herbert W. Armstrong advocates and various others that Jesus was the Son of God by virtue of his birth by Mary. If that was true then presumably she would have told that story to perhaps many persons. Throughout the New Testament various persons relate that "Jesus is the Son of God" but I can find no scriptures that relate of Mary telling anyone about this, so I'm left wondering how these various individuals came to know Jesus as the Son of God.

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named *[A Stronger Faith](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/)* which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get on our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What is an overview of Protestant interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually implied?**

### Introduction In the Christian New Testament, *The Epistle to the Hebrews* cites Jeremiah 31:33 to inaugurate a "new covenant". Jeremiah 31:33 and it's immediate context reads: > See, a time is coming—declares GOD—when I will make a new covenant > with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. > It will not be like > the covenant I made with their ancestors, when I took them by the hand > to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant that they broke, > though I espoused them—declares GOD. > But such is the covenant I will > make with the House of Israel after these days—declares GOD: > **I will put My *Torah* into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their** > **hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people.** > **No longer will they need to teach one another** and say to one another, > “Heed GOD”; for all of them, **from the least of them to the greatest**, > **shall heed Me**—declares GOD. **For I will forgive their iniquities,** **And** > **remember their sins no more**. This "new covenant" in Jeremiah appears to involve the following: - The *Torah* is written on the hearts of Israel and Judah - Affirmation of Israel and Judah as God's people - A cessation of needing to teach each other to follow God - All of Israel and Judah (from the least to the greatest) will follow God - Forgiveness of their sins ### Question Do *Sola Scriptura*/Protestant Christians believe that this new covenant has taken effect? Do they believe only parts of the covenant are in effect? If so, which parts?

Most denominations teach the idea that someone must feel guilt or remorse for their sins and must desire not to do them, however some like those teaching Calvinism or Once Saved Always Saved seemed to stop there while other denominations seem to suggest either certain more severe sins like the Catholics or any intentional sin like the Methodists must be repented of, or one is not in a State of Grace and one will go to hell. There is scriptural support in John, Romans and Galatians for both of these view points. I am wondering about an overview of how the different modern as well as the early Church soteriologies would reconcile the more well known grace passages (particularly among Calvinists and those supporting Once Saved Always Saved) with passages that say sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God such as Romans 1:29-1:31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-6:10, Galatians 5:19-5:21, Ephesians 5:3-5:5, 1 Timothy 1:9-1:10, Revelation 21:8, and Revelation 22:15. I am curious to know about the doctrine of repentance in the apostolic age as well. I have looked at Jerome, Tertullian, and Chrysostom and how they taught some sins needed repenting of for one to be saved. I recognize from Romans to Revelations that there are lists of sins which say that people who commit them do not enter the Kingdom of God. I also know that the first thing Jesus asked the rich man was not whether he had faith in Jesus but did he keep the commandments. On the other hand John repeatedly mentions that those who have faith will be given eternal life. Romans seems to teach salvation by faith alone at least in the majority of its passages and Jesus also told the rich man that with God anything is possible. One iteration of the decalogue in the Old Testament (I believe it is Deuteronomy) teaches that God is merciful to those who love Him for thousands of generations.

**Are there examples of Marian Apparitions to Orthodox faithful, Protestants or non-christians?** After reading this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/106340/25495) (**Best arguments against Marian apparitions?**), it got me wondering if there are examples of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, appearing to the Orthodox, Protestants (or other denominations) or non-christians? I am desiring an answer that has examples of all three fields if possible.

The basis for this question comes from a conversation I had with a friend. She said to me 'The only reason that two people should get together and get married is because they can do more for the Kingdom of God together than they can do apart.' On the face of it, this viewpoint makes sense and is not without some positive aspects, and it is certainly one that I have heard in the church for years. But I don't believe that there is a specific biblical passage that would support this viewpoint. This led me to ask myself, and to ask here, what reasons does the Bible give for getting married? Is the notion that married people can do more for the Kingdom a Biblical one, or is there another reason given for getting married?

To paraphrase Revelation 13:16-18: You'll receive a mark on your right hand or forehead and you can't buy or sell unless you have the Mark 666. Can you tell me from the text from whom (or what) one would get the Mark of the Beast, 666?

*"The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader."* The 4 living creatures and 24 elders are mentioned numerous times in Revelation. --- In Revelation 4: >4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which **twenty-four elders** sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. 6 In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal. In the center and around the throne, there were **four living creatures** covered with eyes in front and in back. 7 The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.” >9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming: 11 “Worthy are you, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things; because of your will they came to be and were created.” In Revelation 5: >6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and **the four living creatures and the elders**, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. 7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne. 8 When he took it, **the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders** fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. The creatures and elders are directly mentioned again in 5:11 and 5:14. In Revelation 6: > 1 Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of the seven seals, and I heard **one of the four living creatures** cry out in a voice like thunder, “Come forward.” 2 I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories. This pattern is repeated thrice more in the next passages, 6:3-8. The Lamb breaks the next seal, the next living creature cries out "Come forward", and the next horse and rider emerge. Then in Revelation 7, 14, 15, 19: > 7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and around **the elders and the four living creatures**. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God, > 14:3 They were singing [what seemed to be] a new hymn before the throne, before **the four living creatures and the elders**. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. > 15:7 **One of the four living creatures** gave the seven angels seven gold bowls filled with the fury of God, who lives forever and ever. > 19:4 **The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures** fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen. Alleluia.” --- What does Christian scripture, major/longstanding tradition, or Church teaching tell us about the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders? Note that I am not asking for personal opinions or interpretations of these passages. Please do not post answers that "reason through" the passages, saying "because of X, the elders are probably Y", unless you are quoting or carefully explaining some source that is considered reasonably popular and scholarly by some body of Christians.

I took a screenshot from [this video](https://youtu.be/CaIrpN8Ga-g?t=151) , juxtaposing two lists of ailments. The left list includes conditions that Christian faith healers consistently never cure, while the right list features conditions they are more willing to pray for, with more frequent claims of healing. Or at least, that's what the video's author claims. Is there any truth to this, and if so, why?

Matthew 16:3 (KJV), which says, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Can this be the world today in 2025?

The Wikipedia’s [*list of Marian apparitions*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marian_apparitions) has a narrative of Marian Apparitions documented so far. In most cases, Blessed Mother Mary appears alone. In the case of the apparitions of AD 1570 and 1587 to children at Velankanni, Tamil Nadu, India, a place then under Portugese Colonial Empire, Mary is believed to have held Infant Jesus in her hands. According to Catholic scholars, is there any special significance to such Marian apparitions where Infant Jesus was present?

In [the narrative in which Moses parts the Red Sea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parting_of_the_Red_Sea) , the Jews are fleeing the pursuing Egyptians, and are also able to successfully traverse the bottom of the sea. In [popular depictions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parting_of_the_Red_Sea) , the bottom of the sea is flat and sandy. However, modern bathymetric data shows that the floor of the Red Sea is [actually quite rugged](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351081054/figure/fig5/AS:1015991567925248@1619242674066/Vertical-gravity-gradient-seismicity-and-bathymetry-of-the-Red-Sea-Rift-a-The-vertical_Q640.jpg) . Indeed, many areas in the Red Sea are famed as diving areas due to the rocky terrain which supports various [Cnidarians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnidaria) likely further limiting the availability of passable routes. Given these constraints, have modern Abrahamic historians done any research into routes across the Red Sea that might have been possible/likely?

In c. A.D. 189, St. Irenaeus wrote: > Since, however, it would be very tedious . . . to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and **universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [*Against Heresies* 3:3:2] Why did St. Irenaeus say the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul? I'd understand if he was speaking of the lowercase 'c' church in Rome, but he spoke of "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church," so—correct me if I'm wrong—he was speaking of the entire Church rather than the singular church in Rome. So what does he mean exactly?