I've been away for awhile and when I got back the thread I was discussing this issue of Church history was shut down. Rightly so it was begining to get nasty. However, DHK posted and I hadn't had the opportunity to get back with him so I wanted to answer his questions with regard to his post. My Statement DHK's response I think this is the crux of the issue under discussion here. I've noted two things in the reply that I would like to respond to. 1. Well, DHK I study a lot of different historical text. Note btw that while growing up I lived overseas until I graduated from High School. So my education has been a mix of French, English, and American. I studied history in each setting. When I got back to the US after a stint in the Air Force I went to University in Tennessee and studied both world and US history there. That was a COG University. I completed my graduate Studies in Pennsylvania at an American Baptist University. Currently, I've read the works of Carroll who is currently in the library at my Church most of it is commentary but you get an Idea of his historical perspective. Currently I've read Zondervan's History of Christianity more of a synopsis really than an indepth study of History, I've Rose Publications History of Christianity another synopsis but has good timelines and quick referrence guides, I've read Dr. Hall discourse on the Early church Fathers from my Alma Mater, I've read JND Kelly an Anglican, I've read John Vidmar a Catholic, I've Read Bruce Metzger, FF Bruce, and Norman Geisler. Note along with these I have read the english translations for many of the ECF. I have one book of the ECF that has the greek on one page and the english on the other. And just for fun I've gone through some of the works of Messianic Jewish writers commenting on the Jewishness of Jesus. And of couse I've read the writings of the second temple period and an analysis by Jewish/Israeli scholar David Flusser. Now I hope that gives you the background for my historical perspective. Note with the statement about the Catholic Church I was saying that as a summery statement. The Roman Catholic church became distinctively that during the Schizm. However, there are traces that are before that but those traces are just as similar to EO as it is to RC. Note there have always been some differences between East and Western Christians. Easterns were always a bit more philisophical while the Western Christians leaned closer to a legal interpretive view of Scripture. The second thing I would like to comment on is your statement . Strictly speaking this is an inacurrate statement. The bible is most subjective. Thats not to say it isn't accurate nor does it deny its validity but the bible is subjective and is very much the perception of God. However, what most christians seem to have a problem with is that they read the bible in their modern context alone rather than the context of when it was written. Nor do they know the context in which the bible was compiled in. I think that with my experiences that I may be a bit more objective than some and less objective than others but I try to give it a fair go. Unfortunately, there has been there are too many writings from peoples of antiquity to suggest otherwise. I have and I have a copy which I referrence. And the definition of Bishops have not changed though you limit their responsibilities from the begining. When in fact the only reason their area's of responsibilities were smaller is because the number of christians were few and as they grew their positions became increasingly more administrative. This also can be determined in the study of ancient writings and texts. True nothing to do with denominationalism everything to do with universalism. Apostolic Succession can be argued from the same text. You do nothing here to further your position. Of course: Shortly there after Note in each of his Journeys Really? Well this verse seems to disagree with you They certainly were putting everyone on the same page from Jerusalem by letters. If your supposition were correct then each church individually would have decided how to treat gentile believers. No to the first And Yes to the rest.