The church before the Bible

[Imagican]

Just a commnent but perhaps it pertains to this conversation:

We have Paul offering that the 'ministers of Christ' ARE eligible for support. That their 'work' deserves the Church's support. But we also have the words of Paul that state that HE is the 'example' they should FOLLOW. And we can SEE that He used his OWN labor in the private sector to further The Church. Worked with his OWN hands as a tentmaker to support himself. Attempting to offer NO BURDEN upon those that were a PART of The Church.

I just wonder if there was EVER an intention of those that sheppard the flock to LIVE in opulence. For we have been ABLE to SEE that money and power have a TENDENCY to corrupt. We have MANY examples of this. And it seems ALMOST universal that WHEN one is blessed with abundance that it USUALLY ends up influencing the benefactor to BELIEVE that it is of THEIR OWN DOING. Thus allowing SELF to BECOME the god that they worship.

When we couple this with the words of Paul stating that there would COME those that would MAKE MERCHANDISE OF those that would follow them, it starts to clarify the REASON that Paul offered these words. They were OFFERED so that those that would READ them would be able to discern the truth behind those that would DO SO. To REVEAL those that would subvert many into a 'false belief' in THEM rather than God or Christ. And as offered, it is relatively EASY to SEE how the DESIRE for wealth and decadence is able to 'bring such about'.

I have NEVER been to the Vatican. But I have CERTAINLY seen it portrayed in MANY movies. NOT always in a negative light. And there MUST be SOME basis for the NATURE of it's portrayal in the movies or the Vatican would be 'crying out' each and everytime it happens. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that at least SOME of these portrayals ARE relatively accurate. The recent movie, 'Divnci Code' offers a couple of PEEKS into their portrayal of the Vatican. And I have read more than ONE book on the vatican and ANYONE that has ever studied art and humanities is relatively familiar with pictures of different PARTS of the Vatican. The Stories of HOW many it took to build it's structures, WHO was paid 'how much' to paint in it, and how MUCH it cost over the centuries and where MUCH of the wealth that it took CAME from.

But what I am curious of and have YET to have answered is this: I have YETto see ANYTHING but emaculate cleanliness, elaborate decoration, (not refering to the part of the Cathedrals that are frequented by the congregation, but those parts portrayed as 'offices', living quarters, etc.....), and even the costumes that they wear seem quite intricate and MUST be quite costly.

Now, Fran, you offer that this mimics what was commanded by God so far as the 'temple' and 'ark' and such. But I have YET to hear or read of HOW this was commanded by God for the CC to build such elaborate 'churches' or to LIVE so extravegantly.

There is MUCH indication that there was a PURPOSE that mention was made of the 'curtain' that separates the 'Holy of Holies' being 'RENT IN TWO'. The indication is that upon the actual MOMENT of Christ's death, the PHYSICAL TEMPLE was rendered NULL and VOID. That at that point the PLACE or TEMPLE of Christ BECAME the heart of man. That God would NO LONGER dwell 'within' a 'man-made' structure. That The Church would BE the LITERAL Body of those that believe in and follow Christ through obeying His commandments.

If this is TRUTH, then WHERE did this IDEA of building such elaborate structures ACTUALLY come from? Was this 'oral tradition' or was it Revelation that came LATER, (after the death of the apostles)? And WHERE did the CC LEARN of it's design of the 'things' that they USE in their pagentry. I don't know WHAT they are called, but YOU know what I'm refering to; poles with weird 'sunburst' type patterns, you know, the things that we see them carrying down the streets in processions and such. Where did THIS knowledge COME FROM. How did they KNOW to USE them and HOW TO MAKE THEM?

And the costumes that they wear. Where did they obtain the KNOWLEDGE of WHAT they should look like and HOW they should be MADE and WHEN they should WEAR which particular uniform? Was this TOO 'oral tradition' offered by the apostles, or Revelation that came about LATER?

This is MOST certainly NOT a 'rant'. I am TRULY curious and have attempted to research some of this information but it's QUITE difficult to find.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

And the costumes that they wear. Where did they obtain the KNOWLEDGE of WHAT they should look like and HOW they should be MADE and WHEN they should WEAR which particular uniform? Was this TOO 'oral tradition' offered by the apostles, or Revelation that came about LATER?

Forgive me, you have left the very limited boundaries of my concern...

If such matters are of interest to you, I would think there are a number of art books available on the internet. However, I am not really sure what your point in all of this is - that people love to make religious art is nothing strange to me - nor do I think that it is necessary for God to COMMAND it into existence. Art is an expression of one's heart - a heart created by God Himself.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Fran,

Once again you PROVE the limits of even YOUR understanding of the intricacies of the CC.

I asked totally reasonable questions to which you simply SNUB off and instead of answering, simply make empty accusations. But, I guess if I were in YOUR positiion, I would have little choice but to follow the SAME pattern.

I CAN understand WHY. For, if I were asked these SAME questions pertaining to the 'tradition' of the CC, I could NO easier answer them than YOU seem to be able to except to offer what I HAVE over and over again; MOST of the pagentry that we observe ISN'T able to BE validified through scipture or ANY OTHER MEANS. Therefore lending creedence to the statements that I have made in the past that MOST of it originated through OTHER 'religions' that existed PRIOR to the introduction of Christianity into Italy.

The Church that you continually refer to is NOT the CC, BUT, the Church of Christ. The MEMBERS of The Body that IS The Church. No amount of rangling of words is able to alter this. That the CC is the OLDEST continual 'man-made' church is WITHOUT doubt. But that it IS The Church refered to by Paul and the OTHER apostles couldn't be FURTHER from the TRUTH.

The FIRST Church was NOT formed in Rome. Nor was it an 'organization' designed and orchestrated by MEN. It was created and instituted through The Spirit and has NOTHING to do with a 'building' or an 'organization' headed by a 'religious leader'. The First Church BEFORE the Bible is the SAME Church that exists today. And this Church IS The Kingdom of God here on this planet. Where MANY err is in that FACT that the KINGDOM IS WITHIN. Within the hearts of those that accept and follow Christ.

Since you seem to insist on 'picking and choosing' the questions that are addressed to you for the sake of discernment of others, I guess it's USELESS to even ask any that I ALREADY KNOW you CANNOT answer in a WAY that will NOT reveal the TRUTH behind that which you PREACH and defend. But know this, for those that DO follow such threads, it becomes APPARENT to them that you PURPOSELY avoid answering what is asked. That speaks VOLUMES as to the NATURE of what you BELIEVE and your inability to defend such beliefs according to The Word without revealing just HOW FAR it varies FROM The Word.

Round and round we go. Only to find ourselves RIGHT back where we started from; YOUR insistence that the CC IS the FIRST CHURCH without ANY actual PROOF whatsoever. JUST the 'tradition' of that which you follow in faith. And this often CONTRARY to that OFFERED by Christ and His apostles.

Now, I attempt NOT to attack the CC. I am directing my questions and responses TO YOU. For it is YOU that would offer and therefore be liable to DEFEND YOUR claim that the CC IS the First Church BEFORE the Bible.

This is NOT a Catholic vs Protestant issue. This is simply REQUIRING YOU to offer PROOF of your claim.

My offering is this: The FIRST Church or The Church BEFORE the Bible was formed in Israel FIRST and then spread BY the apostles to various locations throughout the KNOWN world. And these were offered the SAME Spirit REGARDLESS of LOCATION. The Church formed in ROME was ONLY ONE SMALL PIECE of The Church. And even then, it seems that once politics came into the equation, that those that TOOK OVER the churches in Italy began to systematically DESTROY all that DID NOT agree with their thinking and teaching. In essence, MUCH of the TRUE Church was destroyed in favor of a 'man-made' church able to offer MORE appeasement of the FLESH. Philosophy and ancient traditions incorporated into this NEW RELIGION that they CALLED; Christianity. Resembling, (at least partially), that which was originally offered but denying the POWER OF that which came FIRST. Choosing instead to introduce their OWN POWER and influence on a 'weak and confused' people.

Now, if this is NOT the case, then it would stand to reason that there would be offered PROOF as to the falacy of my understanding and offering. Yet you can only talk around and around in circles about 'church fathers' who have NO validity in scriptue and ONLY acceptable in the hearts and minds of those that CHOOSE to accept them. Rumor and mythology mostly. Fabricated stories and fairy tales designed to alter the truth into a 'more favorable' form of history than that which actually exists.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Once again you PROVE the limits of even YOUR understanding of the intricacies of the CC.

Well, even I have limits... Sorry to have disappointed. :P

I asked totally reasonable questions to which you simply SNUB off and instead of answering, simply make empty accusations. But, I guess if I were in YOUR positiion, I would have little choice but to follow the SAME pattern.

I didn't snub your question, I just do not know the answer. I consider such things "trivial pursuit" type questions. Why does the Pope wear red slippers? Frankly, I have never set out to find the answer to such type of questions. They are not "Apostolic Traditions".

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Fran,

Once again I applaud you for your candor. It takes a wise and knowledgeable man to admit that he DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING. And I TRULY do appreciate your honesty.

And PLEASE understand that I AM NOT simply 'attacking' ANYTHING. I continually strive to understand. Without the FACTS, there can BE little TRUE understanding. The questions that I asked WERE with the intent of gaining understanding.

Trivial? Perhaps. Won't deny it. But for ME, pertinent nevertheless.

But we can ALL openly admit that the CC could ONLY be considered a 'part' of the Church BEFORE the Bible, CORRECT? For we KNOW that the beginnings of The Church WERE introduced FIRST to the LAND in which the apostles DWELT. Israel would have BEEN the origins of The Church of Christ. And as commissioned, the apostles spread the Word, (starting in Israel), throughout the KNOWN world from this point on.

But let me ask this:

Do you deny or doubt that The Spirit of God WAS working through mankind REGARDLESS of The CC. That despite their CLAIMS to BE the ONE TRUE CHURCH, there WERE/ARE other members of THE BODY of Christ that have absolutely NO affiliation with the CC or ANY other denomination. For to DENY this is to DENY the POWER of God to DO as He DECIDES to Do. That He IS able to use whatever means at His disposal to perform that which HE deems FIT is a GIVEN.

For example: If God SO CHOSE to reveal Himself to a 'pigmy in the African jungle', He IS able to DO SO without regards to man or his wisdom or rules. That it IS GOD WHO makes the rules and IS able to FIT them to HIS will. NOT the opposite. WE cannot contain God within our LIMITED understanding or abilities. What is IMPOSSIBLE for man is NOT for God.

In this respect, there is CERTAINLY, AT LEAST, the possibility that The Church consists of members of The Body that the CC has NO KNOWLEDGE of or CONTROL over. And these NOT contained within or BY the confines of the doctrine or dogma OF the CC. And this has been SO since the formation of The Church.

Oh, and a thought: How many TRUE Christians do you reacon that the BAD Popes tortured, persecuted or murdered? And how many of THESE do you reacon were NOT members of the CC? How many BORN again Jews do you reacon the CC is responsible for MURDERING or ostricizing simply for the sake of their herritage?

Not condemning, just attempting to point out just HOW damaging some of these 'bad Popes' could TRULY have been to, what YOU call, The Church.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

But we can ALL openly admit that the CC could ONLY be considered a 'part' of the Church BEFORE the Bible, CORRECT? For we KNOW that the beginnings of The Church WERE introduced FIRST to the LAND in which the apostles DWELT. Israel would have BEEN the origins of The Church of Christ. And as commissioned, the apostles spread the Word, (starting in Israel), throughout the KNOWN world from this point on.

The Church is the New Israel.

Do you deny or doubt that The Spirit of God WAS working through mankind REGARDLESS of The CC.

No, and I have previously made that this was the Catholic Church's stance. The Spirit blows where HE wills and He doesn't require the Catholic Church's approval.

That despite their CLAIMS to BE the ONE TRUE CHURCH, there WERE/ARE other members of THE BODY of Christ that have absolutely NO affiliation with the CC or ANY other denomination.

This is not because of their rejection of the Catholic Church, however. If one is part of the Church, they are Catholic. Whether they know it or not. Rejecting the Church does not make one part of the Body... The Body IS the Church...

For to DENY this is to DENY the POWER of God to DO as He DECIDES to Do. That He IS able to use whatever means at His disposal to perform that which HE deems FIT is a GIVEN.

Yep. That is why I realize that God can come to the "pigmy in Africa" who doesn't know about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Oh, and a thought: How many TRUE Christians do you reacon that the BAD Popes tortured, persecuted or murdered? And how many of THESE do you reacon were NOT members of the CC? How many BORN again Jews do you reacon the CC is responsible for MURDERING or ostricizing simply for the sake of their herritage?

I don't know of any Popes torturing or murdering anyone. Can you cite some evidence, please before making such wild accusations against another Christian? How would you feel if I started asking you such questions about your family or you?

Regards

 

[Alabaster]

That Scripture line is not what I am talking about. The church came before the bible, the bible was given to all of you, compiled by the Catholic church at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. you actually all owe the monks thank you for compiling the NT in which it was passed on to Rome for approval by the roman Pontiff.
You need to research your history books people because these are historical facts. And if you want to get mad, get mad at God for choosing the Catholic church for the guidance of his bible, and the one you are holding today. Except for the KJV which is loaded with errors and has 7 less books than the Catholic bible b/c they were simply thrown out by Luther and the Reformers.

The Church is established and is being built by Christ. We are the living stones that comprise it!

The first church that met together was at Antioch. The Catholic Church came a few hundred years later, and diverged it.

 

[francisdesales]

The Church is established and is being built by Christ. We are the living stones that comprise it!

True...

The first church that met together was at Antioch. The Catholic Church came a few hundred years later, and diverged it.

Apparently, you haven't read the first few chapters of Acts...

The Catholic Church existed well before "a few hundred years later". Where did you come up with that historical data?

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran,

You CAN'T be serious................?

How about this name: Menocchio

I offer this one for it is truly and interesting story for any interested.

If you would like, we could go through a LIST of Popes that ORDERED the systematic MURDER of those that deemed FIT to DIE. And then there is MUCH that is KNOWN but UNPROVABLE through documentation that has been destroyed or repressed.


We don't REALLY need to go there though do we? i was simply making a point about the 'bad Popes' that YOU YOURSELF have openly admited DID exist in the history of the CC.

And in answer to your question, IF a member of my family WERE a murderer, I don't believe I would 'take offense' to someone STATING that they were a murderer. I am a bit more of a 'realist' than some I guess. If the 'shoe fits'.................. My father was a 'thief and adulterer and liar and drunkard and..................'. 'my mother was most likely similar in behavior other than the stealing and drinking. My brother? Not really sure, but if you can come up with something and have proof, I'll WILLINGLY admit it. ME...................boy, instead of making a list, let's just say I plead GUILTY as CHARGED........

MEC

 

[Alabaster]

The Church is established and is being built by Christ. We are the living stones that comprise it!

True...

The first church that met together was at Antioch. The Catholic Church came a few hundred years later, and diverged it.

Apparently, you haven't read the first few chapters of Acts...

The Catholic Church existed well before "a few hundred years later". Where did you come up with that historical data?

Regards

Always a comedian, eh? No, the Catholic church did not exist until centuries later. while the Church of Jesus Christ was founded by him and His hundreds of disciples, the Church by no means resembles the Catholic church at all! In fact many of the RCC doctrines were never taught by Jesus or the apostles AT ALL! Catholicism originated around 300AD, and many of its doctrines are based on tradition and not Holy Scriptures.

 

[francisdesales]

Always a comedian, eh? No, the Catholic church did not exist until centuries later. while the Church of Jesus Christ was founded by him and His hundreds of disciples, the Church by no means resembles the Catholic church at all! In fact many of the RCC doctrines were never taught by Jesus or the apostles AT ALL! Catholicism originated around 300AD, and many of its doctrines are based on tradition and not Holy Scriptures.

As I said before, the Church met well before Antioch, as you claim. My references to reading the first chapters of Acts refers to this historical gaffe on your part. You continue to be mistaken regarding Catholic teachings, as well as Catholicism originating "around 300 AD". That is plain silly, because Catholic doctrine is historically proven to have been taught well before that. We have literary as well as inscriptions of tombs from the second century that speak of that.

Such as the belief in purgatory and trinity of God.

Again, where do you get this date "around 300 AD"? Is that just some result of throwing a dart at a dart board?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

You CAN'T be serious................?

How about this name: Menocchio

I offer this one for it is truly and interesting story for any interested.

If you would like, we could go through a LIST of Popes that ORDERED the systematic MURDER of those that deemed FIT to DIE. And then there is MUCH that is KNOWN but UNPROVABLE through documentation that has been destroyed or repressed.

You said the Pope murdered people. Which Pope physically murdered someone?

As to "ORDERING" systematic murder, to each according to his own opinion. One could say George Bush has ordered the systematic murder of Iraqians, George Washington ordered the systematic murder of British citizens, and Franklin Roosevelt ordered the systematic murder of millions of Japanese and Germans...

You are twisting history to suit your anachronistic accusations without taking into consideration the times these "orders" were given - presuming they were.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Ok, my mistake for 'thinking' that one that has the power is able to ORDER the death of another and that THIS is murder............ My apologies.

Would you deny that there were MANY tortured and put to death over what the 'CC' considered to BE heresy?

So, let me rephrase the question; How many of those that were accused of heresy do you reacon were PUT TO DEATH without DUE cause. How many of THESE do you reacon MAY WELL HAVE BEEN Christians? Christians that DISAGREED with the LEADERS of the CC.

We KNOW that Galilleo was under HOUSE arrest for MANY of the LAST years of his life due to publishing FACTS that went against the CC's teaching. How many OTHERS were persecuted for the SAME sort of 'reason'. That what they offered 'went against' the CC? But, NOW that we are able to LOOK BACK, how many of these were actually INNOCENT individuals who just happened to disagree with the teachings of the CC?

My point in this is HOW could one CLAIM to BE the ONE TRUE Church, led BY the Spirit brought to them BY the apostles, and then NOT understand even the basics of WHAT Christ TAUGHT? IF the CC was The Church before the Bible, how is it that it's teachings are SO different than that taught by Christ and His apostles? For Christ taught that ANYONE that hates his brother has NO truth within their hearts. And NO ONE that hates their brother has EITHER the Son OR The Father.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Ok, my mistake for 'thinking' that one that has the power is able to ORDER the death of another and that THIS is murder............ My apologies.

Do you believe capital punishment is murder?

Did God condone what the Jews did when they stoned someone for blasphemy? How about "Holy Wars" of the OT?

The point remains...

You call it murder, but frankly, that is an incorrect term for the concept that authority has the ability to take life in some situations. Is it murder when someone is defending their way of life? Clearly, during the MIddle Ages, the Church and State has a common goal. A heretic was not only offensive against the Church, but also the State. Often times, the STATE executed heretics because it was in THEIR best interest to do so.

Maybe you should do some more reading on history before you make accusations based on TODAY'S standards.

Would you deny that there were MANY tortured and put to death over what the 'CC' considered to BE heresy?

I have read that a person was rarely tortured by the Inquisition, relative to those actually tried, and even those who were, they were tortured once. Put to death? I have read something like 3000-4000 people over a 400 year period, the majority by several particularly zealous inquisitors. Not defending the idea, but one must account for the legal system of the time... People OFTEN blasphemed FOR THE PURPOSE of receiving BETTER treatment from the Church Inquisition, rather than suffer secular punishment. Again, you are being anachronistic and judging the Church - while I see you give a free pass to Protestants committed to burning thousands of women in Europe and Eastern America over being a "witch", for example. I see you give a free pass to the English Protestants who killed numerous Catholics for following the faith of their fathers...

Really, this is a dead end street. One cannot help but expose their own skeletons when they make such one-sided accusations.

So, let me rephrase the question; How many of those that were accused of heresy do you reacon were PUT TO DEATH without DUE cause.

None.

How many of THESE do you reacon MAY WELL HAVE BEEN Christians? Christians that DISAGREED with the LEADERS of the CC.

I don't doubt they "CLAIMED" to be Christians. However, not being Catholic was not being Christian, in the minds of the Inquisitors. Anachronism again.

We KNOW that Galilleo was under HOUSE arrest for MANY of the LAST years of his life due to publishing FACTS that went against the CC's teaching.

Even science admits that he was wrong on some of his "dogmatic" statements. The Church merely asked science to prove their claims.

How many OTHERS were persecuted for the SAME sort of 'reason'. That what they offered 'went against' the CC? But, NOW that we are able to LOOK BACK, how many of these were actually INNOCENT individuals who just happened to disagree with the teachings of the CC?

How are we going to determine who was innocent 700 years removed? What sort of proposition are you going to put forward? Or are you just making wild assumptions that if the Church prosecuted and punished, they must have been wrong...?

My point in this is HOW could one CLAIM to BE the ONE TRUE Church, led BY the Spirit brought to them BY the apostles, and then NOT understand even the basics of WHAT Christ TAUGHT? IF the CC was The Church before the Bible, how is it that it's teachings are SO different than that taught by Christ and His apostles? For Christ taught that ANYONE that hates his brother has NO truth within their hearts. And NO ONE that hates their brother has EITHER the Son OR The Father.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that the Church does not have the right to defend its faith and punish those who bring about false teachings??? The Church took this VERY seriously, BELIEVING that people would go to hell ETERNALLY for disagreeing with God's Church. They thought that if a person could suffer some physical pain and recant of their false religion, that they had saved one's soul. The soul's destiny was judged more important. Can you understand the motives, knowing this?

Regards

 

[RadicalReformer]

Capital punishment is inconsistent with the New Covenant.

In regards to OT wars - read Isaiah 10.

 

[Devekut]

Capital punishment is inconsistent with the New Covenant.

I agree. Pope John Paul II feels the same way. It still was when the Inquistor's did it, and when John Calvin did it.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Capital punishment is inconsistent with the New Covenant.

I agree. Pope John Paul II feels the same way. It still was when the Inquistor's did it, and when John Calvin did it.

Devekut, then you are not a Roman Catholic in agreement with your church. The RCC supports capital punishment, and a "just war" (what an oxymoron).

 

[Vic C.]

Capital punishment is inconsistent with the New Covenant.

In regards to OT wars - read Isaiah 10.

I know how you feel about this and I have reservations myself sometimes. What I would like to know is, why didn't Jesus declare the death on the cross of the two on either side of him as being unjust?

BTW, the RCC doesn't condemn it but always looks for the better solution. In other words, only under the right and proper circumstances.

 

[Imagican]

No Fran I DON'T 'believe' in capital punishment nor do I CONDONE it. We could discuss this for DAYS but suffice is to offer this: We were TAUGHT BY Christ that FORGIVENESS is the NEW covenant. When WE decide that WE can be murderers of murderers, then WE TOO BECOME murderers. And what is WORSE, what if WE, like the Romans or Jews, UNRIGHTEOUSLY allow JUST ONE to be WRONGLY convicted and sentenced to DEATH? And NOT ONLY do we have PROOF that there have BEEN MORE than ONE, but MANY that have been wrongly convicted and put to death CERTAINLY makes SOMEONE responsible. ME? I don't WANT TO BE THE ONE, (that's responsible or WRONGLY convicted and put to death).

Using God as a example of the destruction of HIS CREATION is NOT a very legitimate comparison. But I guess if I believed that those that I follow ARE 'vicars of Christ or GOD Himself' at this point THEY could very well be considered to BE the ULTIMATE authority. I choose to leave such judgement of others in the HANDS OF GOD rather than attempt to offer such judgement myself. God 'created' life and has the AUTHORITY to 'take it at will'. But I can't IMAGINE men THINKING that they have SUCH authority.

Nice try but you will be 'hard pressed' to convince ME that the CC has been GRANTED the 'AUTHORITY to KILL those that disagree with their teachings. For; ''let HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE". Do you reacon that MEANT ANYTHING?

So, we have fornicating Popes deciding that OTHERS are heretical and sentencing THEM to death? We have Popes STEALING from the congregation yet are able to DEEM another heretical and sentence them to DEATH? Come now, we must insert SOME KIND OF REASON into these debates.........

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Fran,

I have 'given a free pass' to NO ONE. YOU would consider or LABEL me a Protestant. Once again I MUST PROTEST!!!!, (he he he). NO, really, I have protested, neither against the CC any MORE than I have protested against the Protestant churches. If you will READ my posts, you will CLEARLY see that I agree with NEITHER when it comes to BAD BEHAVIOR or 'false doctrine'.

But what we discuss here is the church BEFORE the Bible. You believe and state that the CC IS The Church BEFORE the Bible. I am simply offering that the BEHAVIOR and beliefs of the CC would contradict such a 'claim'. For IF they had RECEIVED The Spirit OF The Church, then they would NEVER have been able to VEER so far from the TRUTH.

The Church DID exist before the Bible and OUTSIDE of what YOU 'claim' IS The Church. You continually offer that one CAN BE a 'part of The Church' WITHOUT even KNOWING it. I don't BELIEVE that for a SECOND. ANYONE that IS a 'part of The Church' CANNOT be UNAWARE of BEING a 'part' of the BODY. IMPOSSIBLE. For one MUST have Christ IN THEIR HEART to BE a 'part of The Church'.

I haven't finished your reply so I'll probably have more to offer. It will be EASIER to answer in individual posts that to deal with it all at once. But, "I'll be back''.

MEC