And the history of the faith, even if "contaminated" is not worthy of a look. You take the Bible and ignore everything else about what past Christians have had to say. Two millennia of Christians, some right, some wrong, have nothing to add to your benefit?
Yeah, that's anti-intellectual. It also leads many to follow the same stunted paths over and over, not realizing that the collective mind of Christendom has rejected these paths. And rejected them for cogent reasons and to forestall the development of further heresy.
SD
Can't you see the point is in dispute? I see the early development of the Catholic Church in the Bible. You see the early development of the invisible Church, which just happened to have Apostles still alive and able to speak with the authority which would soon be lost forever.
The Bible can not solve this problem by itself.
So we turn to the earliest history we have and we can conclude the existence of a proto-Catholic Church in early history. And we turn to the early history of your church, of the group of true "invisible Church" Christians, and we can't find it.
No history at all. Not until way after the Reformation. It's almost like these types of Christians never existed until the 20th Century.
The people in history who believe what I do? I suppose in Abraham's bossom waiting for that great and terrible day of the Lord.
Not "where are they now," but "where are they in history"?
SD
Actually I should have said I do not ignore everything else about what past christians said (that includes catholic christians), I only ignore the things that don't line up with scripture......And trust me there's alot that don't.
Yeah, that's anti-intellectual. It also leads many to follow the same stunted paths over and over, not realizing that the collective mind of Christendom has rejected these paths. And rejected them for cogent reasons and to forestall the development of further heresy.
I totally agree which is why I wonder why you're ok with a few of those catholic heresy's.