It's true in the very early years probably the first thirty or so the religion wasn't organized but it didn't take long to start organizing especially once the Roman bureaucrats joined the Church and once Constantine made Christianity the official state religion it was all over but the shouting.
Glad you agree, but that's not what you said earlier. You don't get to change your point when your point is proven incorrect.
Remember, the Old Testament was written in only the first seventy years or so and isn't the complete history of the Church if it's history at all of the Church.
I'm sure, or at least I hope, you actually mean the NEW Testament. And it's pretty well accepted that the New Testament is reliable history. Luke, for example (who wrote a Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, arguably the biggest contributor to the New Testament) is today regarded as a historian of the first rank. I refer you again to F. F. Bruce and his book
The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable? (There is also a more recent book that covers his ground and brings the issues more up to date; if I remember the name of it I'll insert it later.) Paul, while not writing history
per se, does not contradict the history we know, and due to his travels produced a body of work that would be easy to discredit historically if that could be done.
As to the second part I'm dead right and you prove my point. Of course orthodox Christianity is not mysticism at least for the rank and file. The books that were accepted into the New Testament were the books that would provide for a ruling hierarchy. The ruling hierarchy needs ignorance in order to survive.
Here, you're changing your point again. But to continue, there is far more to the acceptance of the New Testament books than you admit.
You confuse the church with the Church, and try to define it crisply and clearly (which even the theologians are unable to do) according to your own preconceptions.
The last thing the Church (religious state) needs or wants is a bunch of self-reliant, free thinking, and wealthy mystics running around. Look what happened to the Cathars.
The way you use the term "church" changes continually, so I'm going to go ahead and let you post away. No meaningful discussion can be had when the terms of the discussion are fluid.
Steve.
