Thanks to yates amazing composition of factual information ,,,.even fox penn warned of it,,

Ok, well come back to ecclesia again a little bit later, but now let's talk about the origin of the word "church" and how it came to be used in place of ecclesia.

First of all, I wish to express that this discussion pertains to the actual origin of our English term and concept of "church". Our modern word "church" is actually derived from the Middle English word "chirche", which is from the Old English word "cirice". Isn't that special? (grin) Wait there's more to it than that... There is some speculation about how the word originally came into being, but many scholars believe that it comes from (or perhaps I should say "was inspired by") the Greek word "kuriakon", which is a derivative of "kuriakos". Stay with me here (the details are important)...

Kuriakos is used in the New Testament (twice) and means "of, or belonging to a lord, master, etc." In the context of Scripture, it refers more directly to something belonging "to the Lord" (examples of use: 1 Corinthians 11:20; Revelations 1:10). Prior to Christian use of the word, kuriakos was typically used to refer to things belonging to the Roman Emporer.

Kuriakon (the word scholars believe "church" is derived from), literally translated means "the lord or master of a property" and really has no religious connotation by itself; however, it has also been translated to mean "the Lord's house" (hence some scholars are under the presumption that this Greek term inspired the word "church" since church is regarded commonly as being "the Lord's house" - this is likely ascertained from other historical derivatives of the word church, such as the Scottish derivative, "kirk", and the German derivative, "kirche", etc.), but oddly enough, kuriakon is not ever once used at all in the entire New Testament! NOT ONCE! What does this mean? It means that "CHURCH" is not in the Bible (not in the original languages)! Even several dictionaries tell us that the word "church" used in the Bible probably was added because of traditional influence and comes from this Greek word "kuriakon". Then why isn't "kuriakon" in the Bible? Good question!

The words "kuriakon" and "ecclesia" are NOT synonymous! And even though some may want to take the word kuriakon into use metaphorically (i.e. the Lord's House) in reference to believers, the problem is that, not only is kuriakon not used at all in Scripture, but it doesn't mean the same thing as ecclesia so it is completely improper to use it in its place. Simply stated: kuriakon pertains to a building, or to physical property that is in the direct control/possession of some authority figure (in early times, this would be the Roman Emporer and later the Pope - Christian use would later apply this term to their religious buildings and designate them under the Lord's name, but this was not so in the first century - the Bible NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER uses ecclesia to refer to a place of worship).

Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) says, "There is no clear instance of its (ecclesia) being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning."

Ecclesia, by stark contrast, refers to people assembled. In a biblical context, ecclesia refers to the Lord's people (who are His body) - and bears no connotation whatsoever of an earthy building, temple or shrine. In the 16th Century, men of God like William Tyndale (Greek scholar and translator of the first printed English Bible) knew it and did not translate "ecclesia" as "church"... They (the religious leaders of his day) called him a heretic and burned him at the stake all because he translated the Scriptures from Greek and Hebrew into terms that more closely identified with their original meanings!

For example: instead of using the word "church" in his translation, Tyndale used the word "congregation" to place emphasis upon the Congregation of God who assembles ONLY under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; themselves being "the church." Tyndales emphasis was deliberate and true. It is obvious to see how this offended the religious leaders of his day, just as it probably would many of the religious leaders of our day; because Tyndale's emphasis on people being the Ecclesia of God (united on a spiritually global scale - i.e. the one Body of Christ) distracted readers from seeing organized religion, hierarchical leadership and the buildings dedicated for religious service as pertaining to and even defining the Church.

Tyndale further showed his contempt for the word "church" by using it just one time in Acts 19:37 to describe, not Christian, but pagan temples. This is interesting because the Greek word for "church" in this passage is not "ecclesia", but another Greek word, "hierosulos" (Strong's #2417), which means "a temple despoiler." This is the only occasion in Tyndale's New Testament where "church" appears. It is also the only place in the KJV where "church" is not translated from "ecclesia". This is an important detail that most Christians have no clue about. It appears that Tyndale was making a rather strong (not to mention controversial) emphasis of distinction, but his emphasis was (and is) in complete harmony with the original languages.

He was entirely correct to make this distinction because "churches", historically (from the biblical era forward), were raised up under mostly pagan influence. I say this because the very idea to "build a church" (as in a temple) was regarded wholly as a pagan concept. The early church did not entertain any such concept as building a "church" building or a "temple" for they well understood that they were the Ecclesia of God; His royal assembly. They were the only temple Jesus dwelt in on earth as it were. They understood that the Lord's house is a spiritual house made of living stones (1 Peter 2:5) and is fashioned by God Himself, not man (Matthew 16:18; Psalm 127:1; Acts 7:48-49; Acts 17:24; Hebrews 9:24; etc.). As a matter of fact, the early Christians were very much against erecting temples in dedication to God. Such was seen as an insult against the holy temple that God had ordained so clearly in His Word (1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16). This is an amazing fact to consider when we look at how "temple/church building" is perceived today in contrast. To put it bluntly and literally: THERE ARE NO "CHURCHES" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ECCLESIA!!! THERE IS NO DIRECTIVE IN SCRIPTURE TO ATTEND ONE! THERE IS NO CALL TO BUILD ONE! A "CHURCH" IS SOMETHING CREATED BY MAN - NOT GOD!

This is important to recognize, though I will also admit that many Christians do have "the ecclesia" in mind when they use the modern word "Church". I have the tendency to still use the word myself (generally by capitalizing the term Church) and this is precisely why a clear definition and show of contrast between the traditional use and Scriptural reference are in order. Please make note of this important distinction in this letter, for when I use the term "Church" in application to the body of Christ - I indeed mean "the Ecclesia". All other uses of the word church are in contrast to the teaching of Scripture, for (as stated previously) there are no "churches", per say, in Scripture - not akin to what most designate as "church" today. I hope this truth is becoming much clearer.

In early Christian times, it truly was only pagans who built temples to honor their idols and false gods... In fact, most of the pomp of religious ceremony that so many believe to be essential in church services is derived entirely from pagan concepts that influenced and corrupted the early Church.  This is undisputable historical fact! It is clearly evidenced in early Christian writings (which we will observe more closely in a moment).  Observe the following two comments from the book Ecclesiastical History:

"The pagans had been accustomed to numerous and splendid ceremonies from their infancy, and they saw the new religion (i.e. Christianity) destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all the pomp which the pagans supposed to be the essence of religion; for the unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what meets the eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian leaders thought they must introduce some of the rites and ceremonies which would strike the senses of the people. . . .

"Before the second century was half gone, before the last of the apostles had been dead forty years, this apostate, this working of the 'Mystery of Iniquity,' had so largely spread over the East and the West, that it is literally true that a large part of the Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of the pagan mysteries" (Mosheim in Ecclesiastical History, Century 2, part 2, chapter 4, paragraph 1).great data read the entire  account my self amazing..

The Christians understood what it meant to "come out from among them and be separate" (2 Corinthians 6:13-18), for this is even the most essential and literal meaning, which the word "ecclesia" is derived from (its root compounds: "ek" meaning: "a calling out from" - "kaleo" meaning "to call aloud"); not only does it refer merely to an assembly of people, but it means "those called out from among." 

As Christians we have been called out by God into His Assembly; His family. I personally think it is no coincidence that ecclesia has this very thought in mind. It makes perfect sense! For not only has God, in His Word, shown that we have been called out from among the world, but also the RELIGIOUS world! 

Today what a blessing!!!!!,,,

If a man has much of the Spirit of God, he will have great conflicts with the tempter. God permits temptation because it does for us what the storms do for the oaks--it roots us; and what the fire does for the paintings on the porcelain--it makes them permanent.

 

You never know that you have a grip on Christ, or that He has a grip on you, as well as when the devil is using all his force to attract you from Him; then you feel the pull of Christ's right hand. 

The greatest of my life is walk through fire  smoke and all  troubles and grace  no matter what you always will come out ahead,  of when you started.. no standing still...No looking back just ahead ....

 faith is another life ... 

Beyoud the odds , know the differnces

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—  the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”john 14

True in the begining  their was no need to run to Rome or alexandria for wisdo each empire was deply ruthles as it was perverted withe death  etc.. or to create all sorts of go betweens to know what this is to know,,,, actually  means  eipignosis vs mere natural  gnosis , the endless  floatilla of how to books,  carl jurg , somany  how to ,,,and other sooth sayers as questionable materials made into sciences, mixed in the faith .    Which has done well in their collections out of every sectarin notion divised   has it;s own   hypnotic  trance, like allthe get rich schemes it works  the fish bite  the bare hook,,,,,   overomes it;s  reader in  endles assuming... A  new live  listed in the  scripture is found one person not a book  oraotory wisdom but a connection  that is a life section above  is reduced to lip service , not all but enough ...symplicity by faith  a child  and miracle,,,, so  it is withe languduc can help us see  or those that came later, who did not for sake truth for gain,,  Muslims now saved by dreams praise God, !!!!

God does not need doubt, nor does need hate ,   to ahaha,   when faith calls anyway help if we loose who are in  those have fallen from grace by going back to the law- galatians five  apears to be pretty clear without having to dance around the words or shifting terms to, add  spinas needed  false hood to sound wise !!  bondage to grace by  doubting,  faith is anotehr state of mind  over human performance. The modern day christinatiy   mixing up  with pc and  sectarian phsycology,   not to be  left  without hope...  get connected , ,simple,,,

Mencken insists that “evolution is progress” and that “no legislation should attempt
to steal this hope from the people.” Frustrated and perplexed, Anderson replies: “Can’t you
believe in both – evolution and religion?” At this point Mencken asks Anderson to consider if a
bit of vomit can be added to a glass of milk without spoiling it.

Now imagine the glass of milk is Christianity and the vomit is Greek dualism. Can you
mix the two without spoiling the original contents of the glass (i.e. Christianity)? Essentially, this
is the overarching argument of those scholars who emphatically reject any attempt to relate
Christianity to Greek philosophy.  Christian thought and Greek philosophical thought are two
very different modes of thought, two different sets of lenses in which to view the world. Thus, in
mixing them, as many thinkers argue, Christianity becomes tainted. Scholars have long debated
the influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity.  The argument focuses on the following
questions: What is the relation between Christian thought and Platonism? Are Christianity and
Platonism compatible? How much did Greek philosophy influence early Christianity?

James Skillen and Paul Marshall, Bishop N.T. Wright, and postmodern thinker Brian McLaren.
Although these scholars represent different Christian traditions, they each suggest, in some way,
that Greek dualism prevents a genuine biblical approach to Christianity.

By combining the two modes of thought, believers often miss the centrality of the Gospel. These thinkers are not opposed to reason or the consideration of philosophical issues. They are, however, opposed to syncretism – combining different systems of beliefs. Syncretism taints our perception of faith. Alexandira sought to  combine the  christisanity  and greek philosophy. ((funk wagnall).That will be lot of  todays aproach a s well with mind science etc  esteem  all the rest the  non scientific pshycology  or pc agendas now  employed in our up side down culture ..


 Entwined now: after the 12 and  the first century to about 180ad  the waters have soon become muddy there after form the spirit led world the JESUS SPOKE , LETS LOOK ,!! Philo was known to have bene parrissee and  supported the  preist craft  form of the ole cov , it woudl in later centuries of the past cov  was mixsed  into the modern world to this day, their mixed  depsite the warning in the nt of going back wards their blended  it in as consequence  in divison found in the terms to bind them,,, terms etc etc..

 PHILO WAS BORN IN ALEXANDRIA,  Erypt where he lkived his enire life . Alexandria  was the center of  hellestic Greek and Christisn philosphy, the metroppolis of thr learned 20BCand 20AD..thsoe who followed were origin  and clement, great liberal scholors , clement would later reject the mixing and would be  unwelcomed  for doing so as was turtulian for  requesting what has christ do whitht halls of plato, it is wheeer sprirt ledness took a back seat, became anythingthey wanted added as the centuries passed to this day?  or it ws completely rejected into human logic or legalism  or a mix of that led to alot of   guessing?? or ratehr asuming  based on the former introduction of  natural  gnosis thought alone, ussurping the spirit led awareness found the greek term epigenosis , is given by a new  presence not the ole law cov  or mixed  to the  pagan way of the greek wisdom.

       1 Corinthians 1-4 kj3 and the Neb  or the aramic  Nt ..... or 2 corithian 3 paul warns the lofty teachings fo the greek the moderns have divided the body  often for gain sake  and or  all the above . penn fox noted the endless  mix and fix themes for justification of those unions ... as francis schaffer once  said the better the school the better the brain washing....  the question the individual discerment comes  to bare ,when how and where or if it even  if it exists in some cases''  To deal the muddy waters las documents largely ignored as many seek to find the way what was it like when all the human filter grids of doubt  or shifting are removed ? 

Element of truth goes on not often else where , not  all is lost , muslums getting saved by dreams!!!, cheers let God glroy inis grace  depsite our inability to do so,,,,  by gance   withrout our permit!!!  thank God we have nto made a mess of that yet ,,,,,the sad part the time lost in the obscurity of the personal connection may remain  kept as obscure !!

I dare  says BE WISE TO LET GOD BE WHO HE IS WITHOUT OUR  seeking to improve on what he has said or done.....in the actual words  better yet to be spirit led before they had writ  they knew what it was to know is,  and the giftness of the him as spirit  through hs people unhinderd by doubt, in those whom he has worked through mightly for truth  tyndale, wycliff,  vast revival of  wodners done at  lanqueduc, and many other such penn fox if you read them carefuly  listen..

Notce the scripures recored the lack of faith in hsi home town , they had no great dewads they had limited or most cases no faith at all he left them  as he did isreal to send the 12 into  lands pf the gentiles ... great wonders came to them  isreal was detroyed  by Rome, jesus warned them of their herseies .. mercy lord !!

St. Augustine, on the other hand, supported the fusion of Greek philosophy, specifically
Platonism, and Christian doctrine. He asserted the two systems of belief were compatible. And
where he disagreed with Platonic ideas, he simply altered those ideas to fit his theology.

His writings demonstrate his attraction to Platonism. Following the days of early Christianity,
Platonism continued to show itself in Christian thought. From Calvinism to Puritanism and
realist evangelicals to reformers who support a two-kingdom theology, Greek dualism continues
to plague Christianity. For as passionately as some scholars condemn mixing Greek philosophy
and faith, others such as those mentioned above either support syncretism or fail to realize just
how much Greek dualism is ingrained in their thoughts.

Conventional Christianity is deeply rooted in Greek philosophical thought. For example,
when viewed through Greek eyes, faith becomes a private matter; salvation becomes merely a
ticket out of hell and more of an individual experience; the physical world is downgraded; and
the goal of human life is to die, to escape this imperfect world.

Planet earth and life on earth aredevalued. Humans eagerly await death so that the soul may be released from the body and ultimately from earth.

Thus, rather than engaging in this world, becoming more involved, say,with the crises of our times or identifying with and liberating the poor and oppressed, believers distance themselves from the affairs of this world. In addition, believers end up separating life into categories, those things which are considered “sacred” and those things which are considered “secular.” Greek dualism fosters such fragmentation. thanks enjoy ,,,
Most stuff seeks to replace knowing him by going with him in faith, other wise is just mechanical ,  no glory for God in mere human performance , peter  good legaist he told jesus I will for give the other 7 times today,,, wow!! jesus said no peter you will for  give him 70X7   or 7x70 amazing ...  I do nto hold any  on those with me  nope even if they smoke,  their no offnce to me because I to  fight as we all do unless your good  liar ,,, aha peter  would learn that in his denial of the christ  and when his time came as they cruscified him  up side down,,    learn faith  stay free walk in the spirit have to find like minded people seeking truth connection,,,  and real union connected in the 1 corinthians -1-4 neb  kj3 Youngs ...love to all

No longer bussiness as usual?

Sound advice !

Virtually every denomination today began with a group of
passionate believers who pressed for change against the institutionalism
of their day and finally had to leave to find the life of
God they sought. Sadly, however, each of them in turn spawned
their own rigid traditions, and subsequent hungry believers had
to do the same.


If we’re going to recapture a hunger for spiritual intimacy we
will have look at the failures of contemporary Christianity to
lead people into intimacy with God.

Don’t make the mistake ofthinking that Christian unity and charity demands that we close our eyes to that which seeks to pass itself off as the work of God
if it is not!!!

words forms defined

The word "church" is substituted for a translation of the Greek word ecclesia in every place it appears in the NT Scripture with the exception of three instances; all three found in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41. Look at these passages and check the marginal notes in your Bible, if it has such, and you will see that the word "assembly" or "congregation" are both acceptable English translations of the Greek word ecclesia. 

The word "ecclesia" cannot be translated by the word church because it does NOT have the same meaning. A church is a religious organization or institution; or, the word is often used to refer to a building built by men, where people go to do their religious services. Again let me emphasize that the word "church" should not be in Scripture since it translates no word in the Greek text. Jesus did not die for a church or religious organization of any kind! He died for you and me; that is, for all the people who ever lived and who will live in the future. The C of C church, which is constituted of several sects, is simply a man-designed denomination just like all the other churches of today. Men have "birthed" every CHURCH that exists today. God has no church or denomination of any kind. Church members "belong to the church" of their choice, NOT to Jesus Christi Jesus has no religious institution or church!

In view of the above, it should be obvious to all honest hearts that there is no pattern In the scripture for setting up a church institution of any kind. The "pattern" followed today by all brands of churches, including the various C of C sects, is borrowed from the organizations and corporate structures in today's business world. The organization provides the mechanism for controlling the people and keeping them in submission to the institution, its rulers and clergy. The church organization today provides these clergymen -- the hired, professional preachers, with employment and a livelihood! They are employed, with a job description, just like the employees of any other business or organization. The Eldership, the rulers or corporate officials, sets the conditions of their employment, their duties, and pays their salary. Few, if any, will "bite the hand that feeds them."

Let me state a vital FACT: Every time the word ecclesia is used in connection with A CITY it is always singular! Let me cite some examples:

1)"the ecclesia of God which is at Corinth ..." (1 Cor. 1:2)

2)"the ecclesia In Jerusalem" (Acts 15:4, 22)

3)"the ecclesia of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:1).

4}"the ecclesia In Ephesus" (Rev. 2:1)

5)"the ecclesia in Smyrna" (Rev. 2:8)

6)"the ecclesia in Pergamum" (Rev. 2:12)

7)As well as the ecclesia {always singular!) in the cities of Thyatira, Sardis, and in Philadelphia.

Never do you read in Scripture of a plurality of ecclesias in any city! Let that sink in and think of its significance. There was only one ecclesia in a city and it was NOT an institution or an organization. The one ecclesia in each city constituted, or was made up of, ALL THE SAINTS in that city. In Jerusalem there were thousands of disciples and they all made up the ONE ecclesia of Christ in that city! The same was true of every other city. For certain there was no such thing as a Northside Ecclesia of Christ or a Main St. Ecclesia of Christ in any city. They had no organized or even an unorganized CHURCH in any city, for no such thing as a CHURCH existed in that age! I emphasize again that all churches are from men, none are from God!

Today it is very different. There are churches of many brands and kinds in almost every city in this nation, as well as all over the world. NOT ONE OF THEM IS ANY PART OF THE ECCLESIA OF CHRIST! They are all human institutions or organizations ruled and controlled by men. They do not belong to Jesus Christ. He has no part in such human organizations and religious systems. THERE IS NO CHURCH IN GOD'S WORD! Church of Christ churches are human institutions just like all the other denominations.

The Ecclesia, having a LIVING Faith, is made up of --

". . lively stones, built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Matthew 16:18.

The Catholics built a dogma around Matthew 16:18, claiming that that verse refers to the Catholic Church. Later, non-Catholics have copied that “true church” dogma, and applied it to their own churches. But, that dogma is not true, neither in its Catholic version nor in its non-Catholic copies.

As was noted earlier, the word “church” is not a translation of the word ekklêsia which we find in the Greek text of the New Testament. – Let us consider the use of the word ekklêsia in the New Testament, and in Matthew 16:18 in particular.

In the Greek text of the book of Acts, the Epistles and the book of Revelation, the noun ekklêsia is often used of the first century believers’ fellowships, but when it comes to Matthew 16:18, it refers to something different. The immortal ekklêsia or assembly which Jesus said he would form (the one against which the gates of hadês would not prevail), does not consist of mortals, but of Jesus and the first century believers who have been made into immortals. (Well, it could be that that assembly includes even other immortals.)

The story begins in Matthew 16:13. The subject is neither a “church” nor the apostle Simon Peter. The subject is Jesus himself, the question being, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” and also, “But who do you say that I am?”

Wycliffe used in his 1395 translation the word “church” (chirche), but for instance Tyndale (1525) did not. Tyndale translated the Greek word ekklêsia as “congregacion”. Well, even he used the noun “church” – twice, in Acts 14:13 and 19:37 which both refer to buildings connected to idol-worship.

This was where the temple of Jupiter was mentioned ….amazing when no one was looking,

unholy hand maid's of compromise

Maier, (was) a devout Lutheran Christian (Fludd was a devout Anglican). . .  Whatever else they may represent, Fludd and Maier are most certainly Hermetic philosophers, representing a kind of Hermetic Renaissance at a time when the original Hermetic impulses of the earlier Renaissance were waning in some quarters.”  

“Maier may have been influenced by a (Giordano) Bruno tradition as well as by the Dee tradition.  We know that Bruno claimed to have founded a sect of ‘Giordanisti’ among the Lutherans. (See Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, pp. 312-13) Maier was a Lutheran; his intensively Hermetic religious movement might therefore have included some Bruno influence, might be an attempt at the Hermetic reform of religion, the infusion of greater life into religion through the Hermetic influences, such as Bruno had so passionately advocated.  On the other hand the strongly alchemical aspect of Maier’s movement points to Dee as the major influence.  Perhaps in the Palatinate type of Hermetic reform, currents descending from the Dee type of Hermetic tradition mingle with a Bruno type.” 

This new philosophy is about to be revealed to the world and will bring about a general reformation.  The mythical agents of its spread are the R. C. Brothers.  These are said to be reformed German Christians, devoutly evangelical.  Their religious faith seems closely connected with their alchemical philosophy, which has nothing to do with ‘ungodly and accursed gold making’, for the riches which Father Rosencreutz offers are spiritual; ‘he doth not rejoice that he can make gold but is glad that he seeth the Heavens open, and the angels of God ascending and descending, and his name written in the Book of Life.’”  ((trust in christ alone , spirit led ))), 

thanks nice warm there.a little...

Australia writes,

"The written record became absolutized. The gospel became a new law. Faith was confounded with orthodoxy. The Church ceased to be a charismatic community and became an institution. Instead of the Spirit there were rules. Instead of the priesthood of all believers, there was wretched clericalism. Instead of the Spirit and presence of the living Christ there were religious canned goods. Instead of the living gospel there was dead ideology. Instead of freedom there was bondage. Yet, like the Pharisees, we have desperately tried to substitute an incredible devotion to the letter of Scripture for the prophetic spirit." 

30

   Jumping many centuries, we arrive in our historical survey at the religious Reformation of the sixteenth century. Roman Catholicism insisted on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Pope; the authority was vested in the Church and its papal proclamations. The Protestants protested, insisting on the inerracy and infallibility of the Bible; the authority of sola scriptura. Despite these contradictory claims for the basis of authority, 

Jesus said, "All authority is given to Me, in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18). Inerrancy and infallibility is inherent in the living expression of God in Christ, and in Him alone. The Roman Catholics were susceptible (and still are) to ecclesiolatry, idolatrous worship of the church institution. The Protestants were susceptible (and still are) to bibliolatry, idolatrous worship of the Bible. In fact, the Catholics chided the Protestants for having a "paper pope" and a "God who was imprisoned in a book." At least the Catholic conception of God and pope was "personal," though mere man.

   The Protestant Reformation fostered static concepts of sola scriptura, justification, salvation, grace, faith, worship, etc. All branches of Protestantism down through the centuries have prided themselves on being "the people of the Book" or "the religion of the Book." G.K. Chesterton once wrote,

"The Bible and the Bible only is the religion of the Protestants." 31

   Bringing the historical survey up to date, we have just witnessed a couple of decades of evangelical conflict and debate. "The Battle for the Bible" has been the issue. There have been volumes of books and articles on inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration of scripture. They miss the point!What about proclaiming the eternal, inerrant, infallible inspiration of Jesus Christ, the Living Word expression of God, in people's lives? We need a Christo-centric Christianity rather than a biblio-centric Christian religion. Christianity IS Christ!  thanks well said ausy peroanlly in dweling largely reduced the platonic philoshopy and physco bable stuff, discluding real  medical science of carl jurg's sruff  , the  devestating effect of legalism  a repalcement for speit ledness and  faith and helping one another.. we are long ways from the real deal that faith  works through ausy thanks  not all but much is reduced  to the economic and  human performance stuff , amazing... grace in christ alone  no magic buildings , idols or titales and  lofty organized doubt you spoke of  .. free ecclesia  asssembly of people simple ..love to all , stay well.