Replies

The Church as an organism came into existance in Acts2 and it was a Jewish Body at first, that gradually became more Gentile, but one body (which was the mystery of the church)

Churches were originally in homes, not buildings.

There is no Biblical justification for the organized churches in denominations as seen today.

What Constantine did was unite the church with the State and thus, corrupt the church.

The OT Canon was established by Christ in the Gospels, without the Apocrypha (Law, Prophets and Writings).

The NT was accepted by the NT churches within the 2nd century as the books were circulated.

The Councils only recognized what the churches had long accepted as being part of the Canon.

The Apocrypha books were never officially considered as part of the Canon until Trent.

Catholics were allowed to disagree on their status in the Canon.

The OT Canon was established by Christ in the Gospels, without the Apocrypha (Law, Prophets and Writings).

Yet in the New Testament, the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not quoted at all -- does that mean they are not inspired?

And to the point that only if Christ quoted them, then you have to junk out Haggai, Habbakuk, Amos and Joel.

Yet Jesus quotes from the Deuterocanonical books -- Matt. 6:19-20 references Sirach 29:11 and Matt. 7:16,20 references Sirach 27:6,Matt. 24:15 references 1 Macc. 1:54 and Matt. 24:16 references 1 Macc. 2:28 among others.

The Church as an organism came into existance in Acts2 and it was a Jewish Body at first, that gradually became more Gentile, but one body (which was the mystery of the church)

True and this was the catholic Church, yet it did have its bishops (Apostles) and it was without the written New Testament, hence the church existed before the NT canon

Churches were originally in homes, not buildings. -- homes are buildings

the first churches were in synagogues -- as you point out early Christians started off as a Jewish body, yet as they were then persecuted as supposed cannibals etc., they moved to other buildings

Church i.e. ekklesia meant/means the community.

The idea that there were home churches with each father leading the place and deciding what to do is not what Christians did -- rather, read the Didache: Christians met and celebrated the Divine Liturgy in a specific way. It may have met in homes but that was not led by someone out of the blue but by someone taught by the Apostles or by an Apostle himself.

the idea of a "home church" where someone suddenly picks up a Bible and preaches is not what happened among Early Christians who followed the teachings of Christ handed down through the Apostles -- in fact the only ones to not do so were those who twisted the words of scriptures as we see in Nicolaism and Elymas Bar-Jesus.

There is no Biblical justification for the organized churches in denominations as seen today.

I'm sorry, but I see it differently -- I see the organized apostles, 12 in all, even choosing one to succeed another as an organized Church. I see the council in Jerusalem as an organized Church checking that orthodox teaching is maintained. I see the injunctions of +Paul to teach someone who then is to teach others as an organized Church.

Are we too organized? Lets look at the alternative - anarchy. And historically we see that this leads to more and more deviations from the Word.

The Pauline Epistles are written to churches in various cities, but these are not "home" as in "only for the household" churches but of that area, taught by an Apostle and handed over the shepherding to a bishop.

What Constantine did was unite the church with the State and thus, corrupt the church.

Actually Constantine did nothing of that sort. Christianity was NOT the state religion during Constantine's time, all he did was stop the persecution (and actually he was the second Roman Emperor to do so, the first being his co-Emperor in the West as I stated above).

the bishops in the East called for a council with Constantine providing a venue etc -- if he wanted to impose his views, we would be Arians, right?

The NT was accepted by the NT churches within the 2nd century as the books were circulated

Again, I'm sorry, but that is incorrect -- as I pointed out to you, you had Marcion's canon in the second century, which neither you nor I would recognise

Also Origen's canon was within the 2nd century and had all the books which we have now except for James, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John and it had the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture.

Would you say that we should all junk out James, 2 Pet, 2 Jn, 3 Jn and put in the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture?

in fact even until the late 300s this was not decided --> +Athanasius' canon was the last before council but that also included the book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and left out the book of Esther (367 AD).

Would you agree to these changes?

The Apocrypha books were never officially considered as part of the Canon until Trent.

Again incorrect, the Synod of Rome in 382 AD, council of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397,419) held the Deuterocanonical books as inspired

This was then ratified by the 2nd council of Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). So, I'm sorry but the Deuterocanonicals were held so long before Trent

The Councils only recognized what the churches had long accepted as being part of the Canon. -- then why did they debate for so long over Revelation? And 2 and 3 Peter? Why the debate over the Shepherd of Hermas? Because some were accepted as inspired by some and not by others...